Skip to main content

Full text of "The general prevalence of the worship of human spirits, in the ancient heathen nations, asserted and proved"

See other formats 


00 
CJ) 


ICO 


•CD 


CO 


11 

II 


r*TM/w# 

H 

II 

^•i 

ffiffl 


m 


1 


M'T 


T     H    E 

General  Prevalence 

OF      THE 

WORSHIP 

O     F 

HUMAN  SPIRITS, 

IN      THE 

ANTIENT  HEATHEN  NATIONS, 
ASSERTED   AND  PROVED. 

By      HUGH      FARMER. 

Q'hey  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into  an  image 
made  like  to  corruptible  MAN.     Rom.  i.  23. 

Quinimo  non  omnes,  quos  jam  templis  habetis  veflris, 
mortalium  fuftuliftis  ex  numero,  et  ccelo  fideribufquc 
donaflis  ?  Jtrnobiust  ad<v.  Gentes,  p.  21. 


LONDON: 

Printed    by    G  A  L  A  B  I  N   and     BAKER, 

FOR 

J,   BUCK^LAND,    and  G.    ROBINSON,    in  Pater- 
nofter  Row,  and  T.  CADELL,  in  the  Strand. 

M,DCC,LXXXIII. 


; 
SEP    1 1967 


>- 

^!S!IY  OF 


THE 


INTRODUCTION. 


IT  may,  at  firft  view,  feetn  to  be  a 
matter  of  no  concern  to  Chriftians, 
in  the  prefent  age,  what  the  heathen  gods 
were  5  whether  the  objefts  of  nature,  or 
human fpirits,  or  both;  and,  if  both, 
whether  they  were  worfhipped  fo  early  as 
the  days  of  Mofes.  Equally  unintereft- 
ing  may  it  appear,  whether  idolatry  un 
derwent  any  change  in  the  long  inter 
val  between  Mofes  and  the  Meffiah,  Ne- 
verthelefs,  a  few  reflexions  may  ferve  to 
convince  us,  that  a  critical  knowledge  of 
thefe  fubjefts  may  anfwer  many  valua 
ble  purpofes. 

A    2  i.  It 


i .  It  is  evidently  neceflary  to  imprefs 
us  with  a  due  fenfe  of  the  high  impor 
tance  of  the  Jewifh  and  Chriftian  difpen- 
fations.     One  great  defign  of  both  thefe 
difpenfations  was,  the  cure  of  idolatry. 
But,  if  we  are  not  fenfible  how  great  an 
evil  the  ancient  idolatry  was,  how  dif- 
honourable  to  the  majefty  of  heaven, 
and  how  injurious  both  to  the  virtue  and 
happinefs  of  mankind,  we  cannot  poffi- 
bly  fet  a  juft  value  upon  our  deliverance 
from  it,     In  order  to  eftimate  this  aright, 
we  muft  know  what  the  objefls,    and 
alfo  what  the  rites,  of  heathen  worftiip, 
were  ;  what  immoral   actions  are  afcri- 
bed  to  the  former  ;  what  follies,  pollu 
tions,  and  cruelties,  conftituted  the  lat 
ter.     Examine  the  religion  of  Egypt  and 
Phenicia,  in  the  days  of  Mofes,  and  you 
will  be  fenfible  that  even  the  Jewifh  dif- 
penfation,  inferior  as  it  is  to  the  Chriftian, 
and  though  principally  defigntd  as  a  pre 
paration  for  it,  was,  neverthelefs,  in  it- 
felf,  an  irjeftimable  bleffing,    by  direct 
ing  all  religious  worfhip  to  the  only  pro 
per 


per  objeft  of  it,  the  one  true  God,  the  om 
nipotent  Creator  and  righteous  Governor 
of  the  whole  world ;  and,  by  eflablifhing  a 
ritual,  that  was  chafte,  inftru6live,  and, 
to  a  people  fo  difpofed  and  circumftanced 
as  the  Ifraelites  were,  neceiTary  to  pre- 
ferve  them  from  idolatry.  Thofe,  who 
are  unhappily  prejudiced  againft  divine 
revelation,  endeavour,  in  order  to  de 
preciate  it,  to  keep  out  of  fight  the  o- 
dious  parts  of  the  pagan  religion,  and  are 
even  lavifli  in  its  praife.  This  makes  it 
the  more  neceffary,  that  Chriftians,  with 
an  honeft  difdain  of  all  partiality,  fliould 
inform  themfelves  what  it  really  was. 

2.  An  accurate  knowledge  of  the  hea 
then  idolatry  ferves  to  manifeft  the  pe 
culiar  propriety  of  thofe  extraordinary 
means,  which  were  employed  to  accom-* 
plifh  our  deliverance  from  it,  and  to  in 
troduce  and  eftablifh  the  religions  of 
Mofes  and  the  Meffiah.  If  the  heathen 
gods  were  no  other  than  the  objects  of 
nature,  and  fuch  human  fpirits  as  were 
fuppofed  to  prefide  over  them,  then  the 
A  3  miracles, 


miracles,  by  which  the  miffions  of  the  old 
and  new  Teftament  prophets  were  con 
firmed,  were  the  mofl  proper  that  could 
be  chofen;  becaufe  they  were  famples 
of  that  abfolute  dominion  over  nature*, 
which  Jehovah  challenged  as  his  peculiar 
prerogative  ;  and,  confequently,  a  full 
confutation  of  all  the  claims  of  fiftitious 
deities. 

3.  The  miracles  of  the  old  Teftament 
were  defignednot  merely  for  the  confuta 
tion,  but  alfo,  in  fome  cafes,  for  the  pu- 
nifhment,  of  idolatry.  If  this  falfe  wor- 
fliip  was,  what  fome  reprefent  it,  merely  a 
fpeculative  and  innocent  error,  it  will  be 
difficult  to  vindicate  the  difpleafure  of  God 
againft  it.  But  we  know  that  it  confift- 
ed  in  the  praftice  of  the  very  worft  crimes ; 
fuch  as  inceft*,  fodomy-f-,  beftiality§, 

*  Thisfubjeftis  well  illuftratedby  Dr.  H.  Owen,  in 
his  fermons  at  Mr.  Boyle's  le&ure. 

*  Compare  Levit.  xviii.  and  ch.  xx.  19. 
f  Patrick  on  I  Kings>  xiv.  24. 

,5  In  Egypt,  Strabo,  1.  17,  p.  1154.  Herodot.  L  2, 
c.  46.  ^Elian.  Animal,  c*  19.  In  Canaan,  Levit. 
xviii.  24. 

and 


(  *•        % 

Vll      ) 

and  every  poffible  fpecies  of  impurity;  iri 
the  murder  alfo  of  innocent  children,  and 
various  other  cruelties.  Every  abomina 
tion  to  Jehovah  which  he  hateth*,  that  is, 
all  thbfe  things  which  are  moft  oppofite 
to  the  reftitude  of  the  divine  nature,  were 
rites  of  idolatrous  worfhip,  or  what  they 
did  unto  their  gods.  Such  crimes  as  thefe 
are  condemned  by  the  light  of  reafon, 
and  were  punifhed  by  the  civil  magif- 
ftrate,  except  when  they  were  prefcribed 
by  religion ;  whidh  vindicates  the  juftice, 
and  demonftrates  the  neceffity,  of  thofe 
fevere  methods,  ufed  to  reffaain  the  idol 
atry  of  Egypt  and  Canaan. 

4.  Juft  ideas  of  the  aritient  idolatry 
will  enable  us  to  difcover  a  farther  reafon 
for  the  punifhment  of  it :  I  mean  only 
when  the  unerring  Judge  of  the  world 
takes  the  work  into  his  own  hands,  or 
immediately  and  by  undeniable  miracles 
comniiffions  others  to  aft  as  the  minifters 
of  his  juftice.  As  the  rites  of  idolatry  con- 
lifted  in  the  indulgence  of  fenfual  and  o- 
ther  criminal  paffions,  fo  the  gods  them- 

*  Deut.  xii.  31. 

A  4  felves 


(    viii    ) 

felves  were  examples b  of  the  crimes  prac- 
tifed  in  their  worfhip.  Now,  whenever 
vice  comes  to  be  ctinfidered  a&  a  divine 
quality  as  well  as  an  aft  of  devotion,  or, 
in  other  words,  when  it  is  praftifed  both 
in  honour,  and  in  imitation,  of  the  gods, 
it  is  hereby  authorifed  and  fanftified ;  and 
men  muft  fink  into  the  loweft  degeneracy. 
Their  very  underftandings  as;  well  as 
their  hearts  muft  be  fo  depraved,  that 
no  other  evidence  o?  arguments  can  pro 
duce  a  powerful  and  feeling  conviftion  of 
the  purity  of  the  divine  Being,  and  of  his 
abhorrence  of  idolatry  with  its  attend 
ant  vices,  but  immediate  and  miraculous 
difpiays  of  hisjuftice  in  its  punifhment. 
If  the  judgements  of  the  Almighty  upon 
it,  in  the  days  of  Mofes  and  Jofliua,  did 
not  reclaim  the  moft  hardened  offenders, 
they  ferved  as  ufeful  warnings  to  others. 

b  Concerning  the  ihocking  immoralities  of  the  gods, 
fee  below,  p.  281.  and  Lucian,  v.  i.  p.  326.  ed.  Amftel. 
Their  vices  are  fo  well  known,  that  they  need  not  be 
enumerated  ;  and  many  of  them  were  too  grofs  to  be 
mentioned.  Calumny  itfelf  could  not  afperfe  the  hea 
then  gods  more  than  their  own  votaries  have  done.  Their 
example  was  often  pleaded  in  juitincation  of  the  worft 
crimes. 

5.  Idol- 


5 .  Idolatry,  however,  was  not  the  means 
of  moral  corruption  equally  in  all  coun 
tries.  Human  facrifices%  for  example, 
and,  perhaps,  fome  other  flagitious  rites 
of  idolatry d,  were  not  fo  common  in 
Egypt  as  in  Canaan.  And  this  diffe 
rence  accounts  for  the  different  dealings 
of  God  with  thofe  nations.  The  im 
piety  of  Egypt,  a  country  enlightened  by 
fcience6,  even  in  the  days  of  Mofes,  and 
its  cruel  oppreffion  of  the  Ifraelites,  defer- 
ved  very  fevere  chaftifement  j  efpecially, 
after  an  obftinate  refiflance  of  the  moft 
awakening  and  powerful  means  of  con- 

c  Notwithftanding  what  Herodotus  (1.  2.  c.  45.)  has 
offered  to  the  contrary,  the  Egyptians  did  fometimes 
(though  not  often)  (lain  their  altars  with  human  blood* 
See  Eufebius,  1.  4.  c.  16.  Porphyry  de  Abftinent. 
1.  2.  §.55.  Theodoret,  Serm.  vii.  p.  589.  Butthishor- 
rid  rite  of  idolatry  was  very  frequently  praclifed  by  the 
Canaanites,  and  with  circumftances  of  iingular  barbari 
ty  ;  as  appears  from  the  hiltory  of  their  ddcendents  at 
Carthage.  Few  are  ftrangers  to  the  account  given  of 
their  cruel  facrifices  by  Diodorus  Siculus,  Eufebius,  and 
other  writers.  It  is  abridged  by  Mr.  Bryant,  in  hii  06- 
fervationSy  p.  278  et  feq. 

d  Herodotus  tells  us,  that  the  Egyptians  were  the  £rft 
who  would  not  allow  the  ufe  of  women  in  their  temples. 
JL,  2.  c,  '64.  e  Ads  vii.  22. 

vision. 


viftion.  But  the  Canaanites,  befides  re 
fitting  the  fame,  and  even  additional  e- 
vidence,  were  funk  into  a  deeper  corrupt 
tion  ;  and  were,  fof  this  reafonf,  difpo£* 
fefied  and  deftf  oyed.  Many  nations,  and 
the  Jews  in  particular,  have,  in  the  courfe 
of  God's  common  providence,  fuffered 
an  almoft  total  extirpation.  But  nevef 
did  any  people  more  deferve  fuch  an  aw 
ful  ftroke  of*  juftice  than  the  Canaanites. 
Nor  was  this  more  an  aft  of  juftice  than 
of  mercy  to  a  people  fo  refolutely  bent 
upon  their  own  definition. 

6.  A  knowledge  of  the  heathen  deities 
is  neceflary  to  juftify  the  cenfure  paffed 
upon  them  by  the  prophets  of  God,  and 
to  vindicate  the  proofs  of  their  own  di 
vine  authority.  In  the  Englifli  tranfla- 
tion  of  the  bible g,  and  in  the  writings  of 
moft  Chriftians,  the  pagan  deities  are  re- 
prefented  as  devils ;  and  devils  have  been 

f  The  cruelty  and  pollutions  of  their  worfhip  are  ex- 
preflly  afllgned  as  the  ground  of  their  punifhment.  Levit. 
xviii.  24,25.  Deut.  xii.  31. 

s  Levit.  xvii.  7.  Deut.  xxxvii.  17.  2  Chron.  xi.  i£. 
?r.  cvi.  37.  i  Cor.  x.  20,  21. 

generally 


generally  thought    to  have  very  great 
power  over  the  natural  world,  and  to  be 
able  to  perform  real,  or  (which,  in  effeft, 
is   the  fame   thing)    feeming^    miracles. 
Now,  if  the  heathen  gods  have  fuch  ex- 
tenfive  power,  why  does  the  fcripture  fo 
often   reproach  them  with  utter  impo 
tence?  To  fuppofe,  with  a  late  writer11, 
that  they  are  faid  to  be  nothing  in  the 
fcriptures  only  as  gods,    is  to  pervert  the 
obvious  meaning,  and  even  (unintentio 
nally)  to  afperfe  the  character,  of  the  pro 
phets  of  God.    The  heathens  afcribed,  to 
the  objefts  of  their  worfhip,  prophecies 
and  miracles,  and  the  power  of  doing 
both  good  and  evil  to  mankind ;  and  on 
this  ground  afferted  their  divinity.     On 
the  other  hand,  the  prophets  of  God  de 
clare  they  had  no  fuch  power,  no  more 
than  their  fenfelefs  images ;  and  hence  con 
cluded  that  they  were  not  gods ;  nay,  they 
even  allow  that,  in  cafe  they  had  the  pow 
ers  afcribed  to   them   by  their  votaries, 
they  would  be  entitled  to  the  worfhip  of 

h  Fell,  Demoniacs,  p.  60,  tee  alio  p.  57.  Some  pre 
tend  that  devils  perfonated  the  heathen  gods  :  a  point 
that  is  examined  in  DifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  2^0-247. 

mankind. 


mankind.    Shew  us  things  for  to  come  here- 
after -,  that  we  may  know  that  ye  are  gods ; 
yea,  do  goo  dor  do  evil,  that  we  may  be  dif- 
mayed,  or  "  then  ft  all  be  ft  ruck  at  once  with 
admiration  and  terror  "  But,  behold,  ye  are 
lefs  than  nothing,  and  your  operation  is  lefs 
than  nought  *.     Let  us  fuppofe  that  the 
heathen  gods  had  accepted  this  challenge, 
foretold  future   events,  and  done  both 
good  and  evil  to  mankind,    or  either; 
their  votaries  might  have  replied   to  the 
prophet,  ce  Our  gods  have  a6tually  ex- 
erted,and  therefore  certainly  poflefs,  the 
powers  and  prerogatives  we  afcribe  to 
them,  and  which  you  deny  them.  Moft 
falfely  therefore  do  you  affirm,  that 
they*f~  and  their  operations  are  nothing, 
and  lefs  than  nothing.    They  have  given 
you  the  very  proofs  you  required  of  their 
being  gods ;  and  therefore,  upon  your 
"  own  principles,  you  ought  now  to  ac- 
cc  knowledge  them  under  this  charafter. 
"  To  pretend,  after   the  point  is  deci- 
"  ded,    that  all  you  meant  was,  that 

8  If.  xli.  23.  Bp.  Lowth in  loc.          *  ¥.24.  Id. 
f  Compare  Jerem.  xxxi.  15.  cited  below,  p.  xxxiii. 

"  they 


cc 


<c 


(     xiii     ) 

they  are  nothing  only  as  gods,  is  mere  pre 
varication  ;  it  is  flying  from  your  own 
propofal,  and  rejecting  the  evidence  of 
c<  their  divinity  you  declared  you  would 
<c  admit."     If  the  Scripture  teaches  any 
thing  with  clearnefs  and  certainty,  it  is  this ; 
that  the   heathen  gods  are  abfolutely  in 
capable  of  interpofing  at  all  in  human  af 
fairs k.     And  the  truth  of  this  reprefen- 
tation  will  be  allowed  by  fuch  as  know 
that  thofe  gods  were  no   other  than  ei 
ther  the  obje&s  of  nature  or  deified  men; 
the  former,  being  merely  the  paffive  in- 
ftruments  of  providence,  and   the  latter 
having  no  intercourfe  with  this   lower 
world1.     If  any  of  the  rivals  of  the  true 
God  can  perform  or  imitate  real  mira 
cles,  how  can  we  vindicate  the  ufe  which 
the  Scripture  makes  of  thefe  works,  as 
immediate  divine  atteftations  to  the  mif- 
fioa  and  doflrine  of  a  prophet  ? 

7.    A   right  underftanding    of     the 
change  idolatry  underwent,  in  the  inter- 

k  SeeDifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  233-239. 
j  Id,  p.  161,  et  fec^. 

val 


. 

val  between  Mofes  and  the  Mefliah, 
ferves  to  fhew  how  perfeftly  both  their 
institutions  correfponded  to  the  diffe 
rence,  in  the  religious  ftate  of  the  world, 
in  their  refpeftive  times. 

Polytheifm  was  originally  founded  in 
a  falfe  perfuafion  of  the  divinity  of  na 
ture    and  its   conftituent  parts  5    more 
particularly  of  the  fun,  moon,  and  ftars. 
This  opinion  was  generally  received  in 
the  early  ages  of  the  world,  and  had  cer 
tainly   taken  faft  hold  of  the  minds  of 
men  in  the  age  of  Mofes.     At  this  pe 
riod,  therefore,  it  pleafed  God  to  difplay 
his  own  fovereign  dominion  over  nature, 
over  all  the  elements,  and  the  heavenly 
bodies  ;  and  to  make  nature  herfelf,  and 
all  her  powers,  the  inftruments  of  pu- 
nifhing  thofe,  who  had   fet  them  up  as 
gods,   in  oppofition  to  himfelf.    Hereby 
he  afforded   the  world  the  moft  feafona- 
lie  as  well  as   ftriking    confutation  of 
the  claims  of  thofe  gods,  and  demon- 
ftration  of  his  own    charafler,  as  fole 
monarch  of  the  univerfe.    He  might  have 

delivered 


(     xv    ) 

delivered  his  people  from  the  bondage  of 
Egypt,  and  put  them  into  the  pofleffion 
of  Canaan,  by  other  methods ;  but  he 
chofe  to  do  it  at  fuch  a  time,  and  in  fuch 
a  manner,  as  would  convey  the  moft  fui- 
table  and  neceflfary  inftruftion.  And  it 
was  doubtlefs  with  the  view  of  conveying 
this  inftruction,  and  manifefting  him- 
felf  to  mankind  at  this  period  by  the 
miracles  he  performed  in  Egypt  and  Ca 
naan,  that  he,  to  whom  all  his  works  are 
known  from  the  beginning,  placed  the 
Ifraelites  in  fuch  circumftances,  and  gave 
them  fuch  promifes,  as  would  naturally 
call  for  thefe  miracles. 

In  the  long  interval  between  Mofes 
and  the  Meffiah,  idolatry  feems  to  have 
undergone  a  confiderable  change ;  not  in 
deed  in  it's  outward  form  and  appear 
ance,  butinthe  opinion  entertained  of  the 
gods,  When  a  fpirit  of  enquiry  began  to 
prevail  in  the  civilized  nations,  the  divi 
nity  of  nature  was  called  in  queftion. 
Even  the  fun,  moon,  and  ilars,  wereconft- 
dered,  by  many  of  the  Greek  philofophers, 
as  inanimate  fubftances,  long  before  the 

commencement 


commencement  of  the  Chriftian  sera* 
Cotta,  who  lived  near  it,  diftinguifhes 
between  the  gods  and  the  objects  of  na 
ture,  which  had  been  confounded  toge- 
herm.  And  Plutarch,  who  lived  fomewhat 
later,  argues  largely  againft  thofe,  who 
gave  the  names  of  gods  to  things  that  had 
neither  fenfe  nor  foul".  The  doftrine  of 
the  divinity  of  nature  had  loft  confiderable 
ground  in  the  time  of  Chrift  j  not  merely 
through  the  improvement  of  fcience,  but 
alfo  through  the  influence  of  another 
caufe,  viz.  the  learned  nations  having 
made  human  fpirits  the  more  immediate 
objects  of  their  eftablifhed  worfhip  from 
the  early  ages  of  the  world.  Bel  ides,  ma 
ny  eminent  philofophers,  and  Plato  in 
particular,  had  taught  feveral  centuries 

m  Cotta  objefts  againft  the  Eleufmian  and  other  myf- 
teries,  "  that,  being  explained,  and  reduced  to  the  ftan- 
(f  dardof  reafon,  we  were  made  acquainted  rather  with 
"  the  nature  of  things  than  with  the  gods  "  Quibus  ex- 
plicatis,  ad  rationemque  revocatis,  rerum  magis  natura 
cognofciturquamdeorum.  Ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  i. 
c.  42. 

»  Plutarch.  If.  &  Ofin  p,  377. 

before 


(     xvii     ) 

before  the  coming  of  Chrift,  that  all  in- 
tercourfe,  between  the  celeftial  gods  and 
men  on  earth,  was  carried  on  by  the  me 
diation  of  demons,  who,  on  that  ac 
count,  were  to  be  wor  (hipped  and  invoked. 
This  doftrine  was  in  fuch  high  reputa 
tion,  when  the  Gofpel  was  firft  publifhed, 
that  it  was  generally  received  by  the  de 
vout  Pagans,  and  even  by  many  learned 
Jews,  who  afcribed  to  angels  (that  is, 
to  fuch  human  fpirits  as,  in  their  opinion, 
became  angels0)  the  fame  offices  which 
the  Heathens  did  to  demons-f*. 

In  thefe  circum  fiances  there  was  a  pe* 
culiar  propriety  in  affording  the  world 
full  evidence,  that,  as  there  is  but  one 
God,  one  univerfal  fovereign  of  nature, 
(as  Mofes  had  amply  demonftrated,)  fo 
there  is  but  one  Lord*,  even  Jefus 
Chrift,  who  has  all  power  given  unto 
him  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth;  to 
whom  angels,  principalities,  and  pow 
ers,  fpirits  of  every  rank  and  order,  are 

•  Differt.  on  Mir.  p.  181.     f  Whitby  on  ColofT.  ii<  18. 
"*  i  Cor.  via.  4,  5,  6.     i   Tim.  ii.  5. 

b  •  made 


(     xviii     ) 

made  fubjeft;  and  who  is  the  only  me 
diator  between  God  and  man,  the  only 
perfon  appointed  to  convey  divine  blef- 
fmgs  to  us,  and  in  whofe  name  alone 
we  are  to  prefent  our  addreffes  to  God. 
Chrift  eftabliflied  his  claim  to  be  Lord  of 
mankind,  without  any  rival,  by  the  ex- 
ercife  of  a  miraculous  power  over  their 
bodies  and  minds,  by  rifing  from  the 
dead  to  take  pofTeffion  of  his  univerfal 
kingdom;  and  by  difpenfing  divine  gifts 
to  his  followers.  Hereby  he  difgraced  all 
the  vain  pretences  of  the  heathen  demons, 
who  remained  under  the  power  of  death, 
and  had  never  given  proof  of  their  ha 
ving  any  dominion  over  the  human  race. 
8.  The  perfeft  correfpondence  of  the 
different  inftitutions  of  Mofes  and  the 
Meffiah  to  the  ftate  of  the  world,  at  the 
refpeftive  times  of  their  being  introduced, 
may  be  farther  illuftrated  on  another  im 
portant  article,  that  of  a  future  ftate. 

The  want  of  explicit  information 
concerning  this  ftate,  in  the  religion  of 
Mofes,  has  been  often  urged  as  an  objec 
tion  againft  it  5  to  which  a  knowledge 

of 


of  the  heathen  idolatry  will  enable  us  to 
return  a  fatisfaftory  anfwer,  though  it 
has,  I  apprehend,  been  hitherto  over 
looked.  The  worfhip  of  the  dead  ne- 
ceffarily  implied  a  belief  of  the  immorta 
lity  of  the  foulp.  Now  this  fpecies  of8 
idolatry  fprang  up  in  Egypt  and  Pheni- 
cia,  before  the  time  of  Mofes,  and  was 
even  pra6lifed  by  the  Ifraelites  in  the 
wildernefs,  as  will  be  fhewn  hereafter* 
Confequently,  the  principle,  upon  which 
this  praftice  was  founded,  muft  have 
been  received  by  them  in  the  days  of  the 
Jewifli  legiflator.  In  thefe  circumftan- 
ces,  could  it  be  neceflfary  to  inculcate 
upon  the  Ifraelites  the  doftrine  of  the 
immortality  ot  the  foul,  which  they  had 
already  imbibed  and  greatly  perverted  ? 
It  was  much  more  becoming  the  wif- 
dom  of  God,  becaufe  more  for  the  bene 
fit  of  men,  to  reftify  their  miftakes  don* 
cerning  it.  With  this  view,  the  Ifrael- 

P  "  The  law,  which  commands  thofe  confecrated  from 
"  amonglt  men  to  be  worfhipped,  Ihcws  that  the  fouls  of 
"  all  are  immortal.'*  Cicero,  cited  in  the  following 
ftieets  together  with  others  who  hold  the  fame  language, 
P.  303,  304. 

b  2  ites 


ites  were  inftrafted,  that  death  was  not, 
in  itfelf,    the  bleffing  they  imagined,  but 
was  the  penalty  of  man's  difobedience, 
and  a  {landing  monument  of  God's  dif- 
pleafure   againft   it;  that  it  reduced  to 
duft  all  of  man  that  was  taken  from  the 
duft,  that  is,  his  corporeal  frame ;  and, 
confequently,  that,  inftead  of  advancing 
him  to  divine  dominion  over  the  world, 
it    deftroyed    all    his      communication 
with  it,  which  was  maintained  only  by 
means    of    his  bodily  organs.     At  the 
fame    time    the  Israelites   were   farther 
informed,    that     it    was    God's     good 
pleafure   to  redeem  mankind  from  the 
power  of  death,     at  a   future  period, 
by  that  diftinguifhed  perfonage  whom 
he   fhould    appoint,    and   who  was   to 
be,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  the  feed  of  the 
woman.     Thus,  while  Mofes  laid  a  foun 
dation  for  faith  in  God  and  the  hope  of 
redemption,    and    warned  men  againft 
expecting  this    ineftimable  bleffing    in 
a   courfe  of  difobedience,    he  fubverted 
the  very  foundation  of  the  worfhip  paid 
to  the  dead. 

In 


la  like  manner,   the  account,  which 
Mofes  has  given  of  God's  creating  the 
world  by  his  almighty  fiat,  is    calculated 
to  deftroy  that  other  fpecies  of  idolatry, 
the  wdrfhip  of  the  heavenly  bodies.    The 
doflrine  of  the  Jewifh  prophet  on  both 
thefe  points,  Befides  it's  general  life,  has 
the  farther  recommendation  of  a  peculiar 
propriety,  when  considered  in  its  relation 
and  fubferviency  to  that  fyftem  of  reli 
gion,  which  he  was  appointed  to  eftablifh 
iipon  the  ruins  of  all  polytheifrn  and  i- 
dolatry. 

Though  the  immortality  of  the  foul 
was  the  univerfal  creed  in  the  age  of 
Mofes,  the  cafe  was  far  otherwife  in  the 
days  of  Chrift.  Many  then  taught,  that 
the  foul  of  man  perifhes  with  his  body, 
and,  confequently,  that  there  would  be  no 
refurreftion  of  the  dead,  nor  ftate  of  fu 
ture  retribution.  God,  therefore,  who 
from  the  beginning  had  determined  to  ac- 
complifhthe  redemption  of  man  by  Jefus 
Chrift,  and  by  him  to  put  the  righteous 
into  the  poffeflion  of  that  kingdom  prepa- 
b  3  red 


(     xxii     ) 

red  for  them  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  was  pleafed  to  fend  him  into  the 
world  at  this  period,  to  publifh  the  doc 
trine  of  eternal  life,  and  to  aflert  his  own 
divine  commiffion  to  difpenfethis  blefling. 
And  what  more  proper  evidence  of  both 
could  there  be,  than  his  raifing  others  to 
life,  and  his  own  refurre£tion  and  exalta^ 
tion,as  the  reward  of  his  obedient  and  be 
nevolent  death  ?  This  was  a  demonftra- 
tion,  adapted  to  every  capacity,  of  the  poffi- 
bility  and  certainty  of  our  refurreftion  and 
of  aftate  of  future  retribution.  Themefbod 
of  our  redemption,  from  death  by  Jefus 
Chrift  is  no  doubt  the  voluntary  appoint^ 
ment  of  God,  and  undifcoverable  by  rea- 
fon  5  neverthelefs,  fo  far  is  it  from  over 
turning,  that  it  illuftrates  and  confirms, 
the  natural  proofs  of  a  future  ftate, 
drawn  from  the  moral  perfe6lions  of  the 
Deity,  and  at  the  fame  time  removes 
every  prefumpt ion  againft  it,  arifing  from 
the  deftruction  of  our  prefent  corporeal 
frame.  The  publication  of  this  doctrine 
of  life  anti  immortality  was  never  more 
xieceflary  than  in  the  time  of  Chrift;  and 

this 


(     xxiii     ) 

this  was  one  reafon  amongft  many  others 
for  his  coming  at  that  particular  period. 
9.  A  knowledge  of  the  ancient  ido 
latry  is,  in  many  cafes,  highly  neceflary 
to  explain  the  language  of  antiquity. 
Opinions  have  a  neceflary  influence  upon 
language;  and  we  are  very  liable  to  mif- 
take  the  latter,  while  we  are  ignorant  of 
the  former.  I  will  illuftrate  this  article, 
as  I  did  the  laft,  by  examples  relative  to 
a  future  ftate,  which  is  fo  intimately 
connected  with  the  fubjeft  of  the  fol 
lowing  fheets. 

It  has  be  en  faid,  that,  according  to  He- 
rodotusq,  the  Egyptians  were  the  firft 
who  afferted  the  immortality  of  the  foul 
of  man.  Hence,  fome  have  been  forward 
to  conclude,  that,  in  more  ancient  times, 
mankind  believed  that  the  foul  periftiec} 


9  Herodot,  1.  2.   C.  123.      U^TOI  $s  x«i  rov$e   rov 
Atywwno*  «<n  EHrorrej,    w?   avfyuira   ^v^*    cc§a.vst,roq  in,'  TV 


£7T£»v  ^g  weguASq  TTUVTO,    TO.   %E^craia,    KOH  Ta     a^acrirta,    x«,J 
tyt,  5T£TEt»a,  CC.VTK;  £?  avv^wTra  eruu-a.  yivopmov  ea-ouvw'   rw  Tre^i- 
oc.vr»  yu&ff&w  sv 


b  4  with 


(     xxiv     ) 

with  the  body.  But  the  meaning  of  He 
rodotus  is  miftaken.  This  hiftorian,  ha 
ving  pointed  out  a  remarkable  difference 
between  the  Greeks  and  Egyptians,  in  that 
the  latter  affigned  to  Ceres  and  Bacchus 
the  fovereignty  over  the  fhades  below', 
or  over  the  region  of  the  dead  ;  adds, 
that  they  alfo  were  the  firft  who  taught 
this  doftrine  concerning  the  immortality 
of  the  human  foul,  viz.  that,  upon  the 
death  of  the  body,  it  pafled  into  another 
animal,  till,  after  having  in  the  fpace  of 
three  thoufand  years  animated  every  fpe- 
cies  of  living  creatures  in  the  air,  upon 
the  earth,  and  in  the  fea,  it  returns 
again  into  a  human  body.  He  farther 
informs  us,  that  feveral  Grecians  claimed 
this  doftrine  as  their  own  invention. 
According  to  Maximus  Tyrius',  Pytha 
goras  was  the  firft  who  had  courage  to 
broach  it  in  Greece,  grounding  it  upon 

*  Tuv  X.CCT&)* 

9  Divert,  xxviii.  p.  286  ed.  Davif.  Ili^ayoga;  &  o  E»- 

fJHOq  7T£<yTO£   EJ>  TOK  EAA»3£TH/  £ToA/-t'/7Cr£»'   SC7T41V  OTt   atTO   TO  [4tV  (T(i}» 

pee,  rtSwi-ilau,   v)  $s  fytyfl  a.va.'ffTAaa  oj^o-eTai  a&fcjr/;;  xa»   «f- 
r.ai   ya.^  sji/at  avrnv  Trgiv  r,x.-.u  hvgo. 

tho 


(       XXV       ) 

the  pre-exiftence  of  the  foul.  From  this 
account  it  appears,  that  the  doftrine  of 
the  fubfiftence  of  feparate  fouls  in  a  fab- 
terraneous  region  was  received  by  the  E- 
gyptians  before  that  of  their  tranfmigra- 
tion ;  and  that  the  latter  was  an  innova 
tion,  which  was  not  relifhed  by  the 
Greeks  when  it  was  firft  publifhed.  In 
deed,  long  before  the  time  of  theSamiaiv 
philofopher,  the  Greeks  worfhipped  their 
heroes,  andconfequently  believed  the  im 
mortality  of  the  foul.  And,  amongft  the 
Egyptians,  the  doftrine  of  its  migration 
from  a  human  to  a  brutal  body  muft 
have  been  later  than  the  worfhip  of  their 
ancient  kings,  who  were  thought  to  be 
tranflated  immediately  from  earth  to  hea 
ven.  But  it  is  impoffible  that  the  opi 
nion  of  the  everlafting  duration  of  the 
foul  fhould  only  be  co-eval  with  that  of 
it's  tranfmigration :  for  the  latter  necefla- 
rily  prefuppofes  a  belief  of  the  diftinftion 
between  foul  and  body,  and  the  perma 
nence  of  the  former,  after  the  diflblu- 
tion  of  the  latter.  If  the  foul  perifhed 

with 


(     xxvi     ) 

with  the  firft  body,   it  could  not  enter  a 
fecond1. 

What  I  principally  propofed  under  this 
head  was,  to  fhew  how  far  a  knowledge 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  worfhip  of  dead 
men  may  enable  us  to  fix  the  meaning  of 
the  word  death  in  the  threatening  denoun 
ced  againft  Adam".  If  human  fpirits 
were  worfhipped  (as  it  will  be  fhewn  they 

*  Some  have  pleaded  that  the  belief  of  a  future  ftate 
took  it's  rife  from  the  funeral  rites  of  the  Egyptians,  de- 
fcribed  by  Diodorus  Siculus*.  It  may  be  granted,  that  the. 
fictions  of  the  Greeks  concerning  the  ferryman  Charon, 
the  river  over  which  he  was  to  carry  the  dead,  the  infer 
nal  judges,  and  Elyfian  fields,  were  borrowed  from  the 
cuftoms  of  Egypt  at  the  burial  of  their  kings.     But  this 
was  only  an  illuftration  or  defcrtption  of  a  future  ftate, 
and  was  fo  far  from  giving  rife  to,    that  it  manifeftly 
prefuppofes,  the  belief  of  fome  fuch  ftate  amongft  the 
Greeks.      Befides,    the  Egyptian  cuftom  of  fitting  iq 
judgement  upon  their  dead  kings  could  not  be  fo  ancient 
as  that  of  deifying  them  ;  for  it  is  fcarce  to  be  fuppofed, 
that  they  would  ufe  fuch  freedom  with  the  objects  of  their 
\vorfhip.     Indeed  the  very  reafon  of  burying  their  kings 
in  pleafant  meadows  was  a  prior  perfuafion  that  after 
death  the  foul  did  often  inhabit,  at  leaft  for  a  time,  the 
place  where  the  body  was  depofited. 
*  Lib,  i.  p.  102,  103,  107,  ro8.     Edt  WefT. 
"  Gen.  ii,  17* 

w'ere) 


(     xxvii     ) 

were)  in  the  age  of  Mofes,  particularly 
in  Egypt  and  Phenicia,  then  the  word 
death  could  not,  at  that  time,  and  in 
thofe  countries,  denote  more  than  the 
definition  of  the  bodily  life:  for,  had  this 
term  farther  included  in  it  the  infenfi- 
bility  or  extinftion  of  the  foul,  the  dead 
would  not  have  been  honoured  as  gods. 
And,  had  Mofes  ufed  it  in  this  exten- 
live  fenfe,  he  would  (as  he  well  knew) 
have  been  mifunderftood  by  the  Egyp 
tians,  who  afferted  the  immortality  of 
the  four,  and  by  the  Hebrews,  who 
dwelt  amongft  them,  and  had  adopt 
ed  their  fyftem  of  religion.  He  did  not, 
however,  in  order  to  prevent  their  mif- 
taking  him,  give  notice  of  his  ufing  the 
word  in  a  new  and  fingular  fenfe ;  and, 
therefore,  he  defigned  to  e^prefs  by  it, 
what  they  did,  the  definition  of  the  bo 
dy  only.  As  this  is  a  point  on  which 

w  It  appears  from  Herodotus  that  this  principle  was 
Jioldenin  very  ancient  times  by  the  Egyptians,  but  their 
yvorfhip  demonflrates  that  they  held  it  before  the  time  of 
Jtfofes, 

great 


(     xxviii     ) 

great  ftrefs  is  laid  by  different  contend 
ing  parties,  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  fug'- 
geft  a  few  confiderations,  tending  to 
confirm  the  foregoing  interpretation  of 
death. 

It  may  be  obferved,  in  the  firft  place, 
that,  although  one  great  defign  of  Mofes, 
in  giving  an  account  of  the  introduction 
of  death  into  the  world,  was  to  guard  a- 
gainft  the  worfhip  of  departed  fpirits, 
and,  though  nothing  could  have  anfwer- 
ed  this  defign  more  effeftually  than  re- 
prefenting  the  foul  of  Adam  as  a  mere 
quality,  or  as  the  refult  of  the  peculiar 
ftrufture  and  organization  of  his  body  j 
yet,  fo  far  is  he  from  fuppofmg  this  to  be 
the  cafe,  that,  according  to  him,  after 
the  body  of  the  firft  man  was  perfectly 
organized  by  the  immediate  hand  of  hea 
ven,  he  did  not  become  a  living  foul  or 
perfen*,  till  God  breathed  into  his  nojlrih 
the  breath  of  life7:  a  principle  diftinft 

*  That  nephejh  often  fignifies  perfon  appears  from  Gen. 
xvii.  14.  Lev-it,  iv.  2.  ch.  vii.  20.  and  many  other  places. 
x  Gen.  ii.  7. 

from 


(     xxix     ) 

from  the  duft  out  of  which  his  body  was 
formed,  and,  therefore;  capable  of  fub- 
fifting  in  a  ftate  of  reparation  from  it. 
Nor  docs  Mofes  ufe  the  fame  language 
in  relating  the  formation  of  any  other 
living  creatures  ;  which  is  a  proof  that 
the  principle  of  life  in  man  is  of  a  fupe- 
rior  kind  to  that  in  brutes. 

Secondly.  The  ancient  patriarchs  did 
not  believe  that  the  foul  of  man  pe- 
rifhed  with  his  body.  The  moft  ancient 
opinion,  concerning  departed  fpirits, 
that  we  meet  with  in  the  heathen  re 
cords,  was,  that  they  defcended  into 
a  fubterraneous  region,  or  a  place  in- 
vifible  to  human  fight,  called  by  the 
Hebrews,  Jheol,  and  by  the  Greeks,  badef^ 
and  that,  in  this  place,  perfons  of  the 
fame  nation,  tribe,  and  family,  and  alfo 
thofe  who  were  united  in  the  bonds  of 
friendfhip,  aflbciated,  and  dwelt  toge- 

*  The  Greeks  affigned  to  Pluto,  the  Ton  of  Saturn,  the 
fovereignty  over  the  manfions  of  the  dead  :  which  fup- 
pofes  a  previous  perfuafion,  in  the  moft  ancient  times,  that 
fouls  had  their  abode  in  them.  The  regions  of  the 
dead  are  fpoken  of  in  Homer  and  the  moft  ancient  hea 
then  writers , 

then 


(     xxxii     ) 

conceive  death  to  import  the  utter  ex* 
tin6lion  of  the  foul,  and  therefore,  would 
not  affix  this  meaning  to  it  himfelf. 
Nay, 

Thirdly,  we  know,  with  certainty, 
that  this  prophet  himfelf  believed  the  fe- 
parate  fubfiftence  of  the  foul,  and  has 
even  given  it  a  divine  fan6lion  :  for  he 
reprefents  God,  as  making  this  promife 
to  Abraham,  Toou  foalt  go  to  thy  fathers 
in  peace".  Was  it  poffible  for  him,  then, 
to  maintain  the  oppofite  opinion  ? 

Fourthly,  none  of  the  facred  writers 
do  ever  defcribe  death  in  terms  different 
fro^a  thofe  ufed  by  perfons,  who  certain 
ly  acknowledged  the  continuance  of  the 
foul  after  it.  If  we  read  in  the  Pfalmsf, 
that  the  dead  (rephaim,  the  ghqfls)  praife 
not  God,  the  fon  of  Sirach5  affirms  the 
fame  thing,  at  a  time  when  it  is  al 
lowed  that  the  Jews  did  believe  the  foul 
to  be  immortal.  In  Scripture,  I  ac 
knowledge,  death  is  defcribed  by  Jleep ; 

*  Gen.  xv.   15.  f  Pf.  Ixxxviii.   10. 

s  Ecclefiailicus  xvii.  28. 

but 


(     xxxiii     ) 

but  not  to  plead  that  fleep  is  not  a  ftate 
of  non-exiftence,  but  ofr^/?,  it  is  well 
known  that  this  foft  image  of  death  was 
commonly  ufed  to  exprefs  the  thing  it- 
felf  by  thofe  who  afTerted  the  exiftence  of 
fouls  in  hadesh.  Other  terms  by  which 
the  ftate  of  the  dead  is  defcribed,  fuch  as 
Jllence^  oblivion,  darkmfs>  and  corruption^  re 
fer  only  to  the  body,  or  to  the  fuppofed  ftate 
of  the  foul  while  it  was  mjheol,  and  are  not 
peculiar  to  the  facred  writers,  but  were 
common  in  all  countries1,  where  both  the 
popular  belief  and  the  eftablifhed  worfhip 
were  inconfiftent  with  the  notion  of  the 
fouFs  perifhing  with  the  body.  That 
ftrong  expreffion  of  Rachel  upon  the  death 
of  her  children,  they  are  nofk>  no  more 
imports  the  non-exiftence  of  their  fouls 
than  of  the  materials  of  their  bodies  $ 
and  means  no  more  than  that  they  were 
as  totally  loft  to  her  and  to  this  world 
as  if  they  had  no  exiftence  at  all.  The 

h  See  Komer,  Iliad  II.  454. 

1  See  Windet  de  vita  fun&orum  ftatu,  fe&.  2.  p.  n. 
ct  fcq. 

k  Jerem,  xxxi.  15, 

c  foregoing 


(     xxxiv     ) 

foregoing  defcriptions  of  death  eafily 
may,  and  neceflarily  muft,  be  under-* 
flood  in  a  fenfe  confiftent  with  that  uni- 
verfal  creed  of  the  ancients,  and  parti 
cularly  of  the  facred  writers,  that  the 
foul  remains  after  the  body  is  deftroyed. 
This  interpretation  will  appear  ftill  more 
reafonable  and  neceflary,  when  we  con- 
fider  that  many  of  the  terms,  by  which 
death  was  defcribed  in  all  countries,  do 
clearly  imply,  and  are  built  upon,  a  be 
lief  of  the  diftinclion  between  foul  and 
body,  and  of  their  being  feparated  at 
death.  As,  according  to  the  Greeks,  to 
die  was  to  depart1,  to  go  away™-,  fo  the 
writers  of  the  New  Teftament  defcribe 
death  by  a  departure",  that  is,  of  the 
foul  from  the  body  to  another  ftate.  In 
this  departure,  therefore,  they  muft  have 
thought  death  to  confift  :  and  confe- 
quently  the  great  Jewifh  prophet  had 
the  fame  idea  of  it.  It  muft  be  obferved, 


n  Efo£05,  Luke  ix.  31.     See  Grotius,  Whitby,  and 
Wetflein,.  on  this  place. 

Fifthly, 


(       XXXV      ) 

Fifthly,  that  the  foregoing  explica 
tion  of  death  will  be  greatly  confirmed 
by  confidering  the  meaning  of  life  as  op- 
pofed  to  it.  Thofe,  I  apprehend,  whofe 
departed  fpirits  exifted  in  Jheol,  were 
not  reprefented  as  being  alive,  or  as  //- 
ving,  except  in  refpeft  to  the  purpofe  of 
God  to  reftore  them  to  life.  But,  when 
their  fouls  were  removed  from  fheol  or 
hades,  and  united  a  fecond  time  to  a  hu 
man  body,  then  they  were  faid  to  live  a- 
gain  j  being  now  reftored  to  a  life  fimi- 
lar  to  what  they  had  loft.  This  appears 
from  the  writings  both  of  the  Heathens 
and  of  the  Jews.  Amongft  the  Celts, 
fays  Diodorus  Siculus,  the  doftrine  of 
Pythagoras  prevails  ;  who  held  that  the 
fouls  of  men  are  immortal,  that  they 
pafs  into  other  bodies,  and,  after  a  cer 
tain  determinate  time,  live  again0. 
This  refers  to  the  period  fpoken  of  by 
Herodotus,  after  which  fouls  returned 


*      Diod.  SlC» 

1.  v.  p.  352,  WelT. 

C    2  tQ 


(     xxxvi     ) 

to  human  bodies.  The  grand  Lama  was 
faid  to  die  only  in  appearance ;  becaufe 
he  was  fuppofed  to  be  born  in  a  new  hu 
man  body,  in  the  very  inftant  he  quit 
ted  the  old  one p. 

It  is  of  more  importance  ftillto  examine 
the  language  and  fentiments  of  the  Jews 
on  this  fubjeft.  It  is  commonly  allowed 
that  the  Jews,  from  the  time  of  their  re 
turn  from  Babylon%  aflerted  the  feparate 
exiftence  of  the  foul  after  death.  This 
was  the  opinion  not  only  of  a  few  emi 
nent  individuals,  fuch  as  Philo,  but 
of  thofe  learned  fefts  amongft  them,  the 
EfTenes*  and  Pharifees^  and  of  the  whole 

body 

v  Above,  p.  126. 

>  9  That  they  always  held  this  principle  appears  from 
their  imitation  of  the  heathen  idolatry,  from  their  evoca 
tion  of  the  dead,  and  from  the  early  references  in  Scrip 
ture  to  the  receptacle  of  departed  fouls,  and  many 
other  proofs. 

r  Jofeph.  Bell.  Jud..  1.  2.  C.  8.  §.  1 1.  E^wra*  sra/  au- 
TG45  D$t  r>  3b|a, "  '  rets  ^'%a?  aSavara?  an  5*a/xEV£ij». 

9  They  believed  that  the  foul  was  immortal ;  aSav&roy 
uryyv  rai?  ^v^ot^  TTIH?  avron;  uvcti ;  and  that  the  fouls  of 
good  men  had  ($cirurw  T»  ay^is*)  power  to  revtv e  or  live 

again* 


(     xxxvii     ) 

body  of  the  people1,  almoft  without  ex 
ception0,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour. 
To  this  principle  the  Pharifees  (the 
moft  numerous  fe6l  amongft  the  Jews, 
and  whofe  doctrine  formed  the  popular 
creed)  added  another,  viz.  the  refur- 
reftion  of  the  dead*.  Thefe  two  prin 
ciples  were  thought  to  be  clofely  con- 
nefted.  The  Sadducees  believed  the 
extinftion  of  the  foul  at  death,  and  did 
not  admit  the  refurreftion  :  the  Pharifees, 
on  the  other  hand,  admitted  the  latter 
and  denied  the  former.  I  cannot  find  a 
fingle  example,  before  the  time  of  Chrift, 

again.  Jofeph  Antiq.  1.  18.  c.  I.  §.  3.  The  fame  hif- 
torian,  in  his  Bel.  Jud.  1.  2.  c.  8.  §.  14.  confirms  the 
above  account  of  them  :  they  believed  that  every  foul 
was  incorruptible  ;  but  that  the  foul  of  the  good  alone  went 
into  another  body  j  ^teraCaivm  5*5  srsgov  yu^ot  TW  TUV  ctyoiS&t 


1  The  people  followed  the  Pharifees. 

u  The  Sadducees  were  the  only  exception.  They 
taught  that  the  foul  perifhed  with  the  body.  Za^ax.ato^ 
^2  ra?  4/y%£t?  °  ^oy^1  0-vva.^ex.vi^i  TO*?  crw^tacrt.  Jofeph.  An 
tiq.  1.  l8.  C.  I.  §.  4.  1?y%^?  T£  rriv  &a.pQvr,v—'a,v«,i£*iffi. 

B.  IX.  1.  2.  c.  8.  §.  14.  Aft.  xxiii. 

w  See  above,  note8,  and  Afts  xxiii.  8.  The  Jews 
in  general  agreed  with  the  Pharifees  in  maintaining  a 
refurredion.  Ads  xxiv.  15. 

c  3  of 


(     xxxviii     ) 

of  a  perfon,  who  believed  the  refur- 
rection  of  the  dead,  that  did  not  at  the 
fame  time  allow  the  permanence  of  the 
foul  after  death.  The  Jews  expreffed 
the  refurreftion  by  the  terms,  revivif- 
cence,  living  again.,  that  is,  a  return  to 
the  fame  kind  of  life  as  their  former  one. 
This  appears  from  a  pafTage  already 
cited*,  and  may  be  confirmed  by  many 
others.  The  king  of  the  world  jhall  raife 
us  up  unto  everlajting  lifey  faid  one  of  the 
feven  children  fpoken  of  in  the  book  of 
Maccabees7;  which  is  equivalent  to  that 
language  of  their  mother,  God  will  give 
you  life  and  breath  agaiii.  She  alfo  ap 
plies  to  them  thofe  words  of  God,  /  kill, 
and  I  make  alive.  Thofe  who  died  for 
the  law  were  encouraged  to  expeft  a  re- 
vivifcence*. 

The  queftion  here  is,  what  is  meant 
by  this  revivifcence,  or  return  to 
life,  by  which  the  refurre£tion  is  def- 

*  See  above,  note'.  *  2  Maccab.  vii.  9. 

*  Ib.  V.  22. 

*  naTuyfmcna.     Jofephus,  de  Maccab.    p.  1101,  E. 
f.  ap.  Whitby  on  Mat.  xxii.  30,  p.  191. 

cribed  ? 


(     xxxix     ) 

cribed  ?  Did  the  Jews  hereby  mean  cre 
ating  anew  the  foul  that  had  been  de- 
ftroyed?  If  this  be  a  thing  poffible  in  it's 
nature,  it  could  not  poffibly  be  their 
meaning;  becaufe  they  did  not  allow 
that  the  former  foul  perifhed  at  death. 
Did  they  believe  that  man  had  no  foul, 
and  therefore  that  his  refurreftion  con- 
fifted  in  the  re-organization  of  his  for 
mer  body  or  in  furnifhing  him  with  a 
new  body,  organized  as  that  was  ?  This 
is  a  flat  contradiction  to  their  belief  of 
the  diflin£lion  between  foul  and  body, 
and  the  feparate  exiftence  of  the  former. 
What  then  did  they  or  could  they  mean 
by  the  refurrettion  to  life,  but  the  refto- 
ration  of  that  kind  of  life  which  they  had 
loft,  by  the  reunion  of  their  fouls  to  a 
human  body,  either  the  very  fame  that 
they  had  before,  or  one  in  effe6t  the 
fame  ?  In  virtue  of  this  re-union,  the  dead 
man  became  a  living  man,  the  fame  as  he 
was  before  he  died,  with  the  fame  con- 
fcioufnefs  and  recolleftion,  the  principle 
of  confcioufnefs  having  never  perifhed. 
c  4  Hence 


Hence  they  fpeak   of  the  martyrs  as  be 
ing  received,  dying*,  by  Abraham;  andre- 
prefent  the  fouls  of  the  righteous  in  the 
intermediate   ftate  as  being  in  the  hand  of 
God^  and  having  hopes  full  of  immortality*  , 
or  of  a  refurreftion  to  eternal  life.     Far 
ther  to  confirm   the  preceding   account 
of  a  refurreftion     and  revivifcence,      I 
muft  obferve  that   Jofephus,    who  on  all 
occafions  afierted  the  feparate  exiftence 
of  the  foul*,    has  himfelf  explained  thefe 
terms  by  the  return  of  the  foul  of  a  dead 
perfon  to  it's  body.       Elijah,  according 
to   this    hiftorian,    having  promifed  to 
reftore  a  dead  child  to  his  mother  alive*, 
prayed   to   God  to  fend  back  his  foul  into 
him,  and  to  grant  him  life\  and  the  child 
lived  again*. 

b  Whitby,  ubi  fupra. 

e  Wifdom,  iii.   i,  4. 

d  Poffeffing  demons,  according  to  him,  were  the  fouls 
of  wicked  men.  Bel.  Jud.  1.  7.  c.  6.  §.3.  He  was  a 
Pharifee,  and  confequently  had  adopted  the  principles 
of  his  fedl.  See  above,  note  8,  p.  xxxvi. 


ccvru  rovGiov.      Jofeph.  Antiq.  1.  8.   c.  13.   §.  3. 
Comp.  i  Kings  xvii.  21.  I  A»i&Sv«i'» 

I  do 


I  do  not  appeal  to  the  Jews  as  au 
thorities  to  determine  points  of  doc 
trine,  nor  can  I  afTent  to  all  that  they 
have  faicl  concerning  the  condition  of 
the  foul  in  the  interval  between  death 
and  the  refurreftion.  The  onlyufel 
would  make  o^them  is  to  fhew,  in  what 
fenfe  certain  words  were  ufed  in  and 
near  the  time  of  Chrift,  in  order  to  ex 
plain  the  language  of  Scripture.  If,  in 
the  time  here  referred  to,  the  terms,  re- 
furrettion^  revivifcence,  or  living  again* 
as  ufed  both  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  de 
noted  the  reunion  of  a  foul  to  a  human 
body;  the  fame  terms,  when  adopted  by 
Chrift  and  his  apoftles,  muft  have  the 
fame  meaning.  Every  one  would  un- 
derftand  them  in  their  common  and 
ordinary  fignification.  If,  in  the  inter 
pretation  of  the  language  of  the  fa- 
cred  writers,  we  are  not  guided  and 
determined  by  the  ufe  of  the  fame  lan 
guage  by  their  contemporaries,  fancy 
alone  muft  be  our  interpreter.  Now, 
if  we  know  what  life,  when  it  expref- 

fes 


fes  the  refurreflion,  is,  we  cannot  but 
underftand  the  meaning  of  death  it's  op- 
pofite ;  and,  confequently,  as  the  former 
figriifies  the  foul's  return  to  a  human  bo 
dy,  the  latter  denotes  'it's  feparation. 
Both  terms  imply  the  continuance  of 
the  foul  after  death:  a  principle  held 
univerfally  in  the  moft  ancient  timesh, 
and  which  gives  great  probability  to  the 
doftrine  of  a  refurre£Hon:  a  doftrine  of 
the  higheft  importance  in  the  view  of 
all  Chriftians,  and  the  grand  objeft  of 
their  faith  and  hope. 

i  o.I  might  proceed  to  fhew,  that,  with 
out  a  clear  knowledge  of  the  ancient  idola 
try  we  cannot  vindicate  the  laws  of  Mofes, 
nor  do  juftice  to  the  character  of  that  di 
vine  legiflator.  But  I  cannot  enlarge 
here  upon  this  fubje6l  without  anticipa 
ting  what,  I  hope,  will  come  under  fu 
ture  confideration. 

The  obfervations,  that  have  been  made 
on  the  great   utility  of  being  well  ac- 

h  It  \vas  holden,  we  have  Teen,  by  Heathens  and  Jews, 
by  patriarchs  and  prophets,  and  by  the  people,  parti 
cularly  in  the  times  of  Mofes  and  the  MefTiah. 

quaintcd 


(     xlili     ) 

quainted  with  the  objefts  and  rites  of  hea 
then  worfhip,  are  equally  applicable  to  al- 
moft  all  the  opinions  and  cuftoms1  of  anti 
quity,  to  which  the  Scriptures  continually 
refer.  What  an  agreeable  ufe  has  Mr. 
Harmer  made  of  his  extenfive  knowledge 
of  them,  in  a  work,  as  inftrudive  as  it 
is  entertaining  !k  For  want  of  this  know 
ledge,  Chriflians  have  miftaken  pagan 
tenets  for  the  genuine  do6trines  of  the 
Gofpel.  The  language  of  the  Fathers  is 
unintelligible  by  thofe  who  are  not  well 
acquainted  with  the  opinions  which  pre 
vailed,  before  their  times,  in  the  fchools 
of  the  heathen  philofophers.  And  the 
expofitors,  who  have  thrown  moft  light 
upon  the  Scriptures,  are  fuch  as  had  the 
largeft  acquaintance  with  pagan  anti 
quity. 

The  foregoing  refleftions,  however  de- 

fetfive,  are,  never  thelefs,  a  fufficient  a- 

pology  for  any  attempt  to  bring  thofe 


1  See  the  learned  Mr.  Parkhurft's   Preface  to  his  He 
brew  Lexicon, 

k  Obfervations  on  divers  paffages  of  Scripture. 

quainted 


(     xliv     ) 

quainted  with  the  heathen  religion,  who 
have  no  leifure  to  fearch  the  records  of 
antiquity.  My  defign  is  to  lay  before 
them  fuch  fafts  as  fhall  enable  them  to 
form  a  judgement  for  themfelves  upon 
the  fubjeft,  without  relying  upon  the  de- 
cifion  of  others.  I  propofe, 

I.  To  fhew  the  general  prevalence  of 
the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  the  an 
cient  heathen  world. 

II.  To  enquire  into  the  grounds  of 
this  and  every  other  fpecies  of  idolatry,  or 
into  the  principles  upon  which  the  whole 
fyftem  of  polytheifm  was  built. 

III.  To  confider  the  high  antiquity  of 
Idolatry,  and  more  efpecially  of  that  fpe 
cies  of  it,  the  worfhip  of  human  gods. 
And, 

I V .  To  examine  how  far  the  reprefenta- 
tion  of  the  pagan  gods,  in  Scripture,  agrees 
with  that  made  of  them  in  the  writings  of 
the  Heathens ;  or,  how  far  the  two  accounts 
mutually  ill  uftrate  and  confirm  each  other. 

The  firft  of  thefe  articles,  alone,  is  the 
fubjeft  of  the  prefent  publication  j  and 

it 


it  is  eftabliihed  upon  evidence  indepen 
dent  of  the  reft  ;  fo  that  it  may  be  fitly 
confidered  as  a  diltinit  treatife,  fuch  as 
might  have  been  published  by  itfelf, 
though  no  other  were  to  follow.  But 
the  other  articles  are  in  a  ftate  of  great 
preparation  for  the  prefs. 

The  fubjecl  of  the  following  flieets 
was  touched  upon  in  a  former  publica 
tion,  but  was  then  neceflarily  circumfcri- 
bed  within  narrow  bounds.  Here  it  is 
examined  at  large :  and  a  wider  compafs 
is  taken  than  any  former  writer,  that  I 
have  feen,  had  done.  A  very  pardona 
ble  zeal,  to  fupport  the  reputation  of  the 
antient  nations,  has  of  late  difpofed  fome 
learned  writers  to  take  pains  to  clear  feve- 
ralof  them  from  the  reproach  of  worfhip- 
ing  dead  men.  It  has  been  laid  by  fome, 
that  this  worfhip  did  not  obtain  amongft 
the  antient  Per/tans.  Others  have  affirm 
ed  the  fame  concerning  the  Germans, 
before  their  conqueft  by  the  Romans. 
A  foreigner  of  great  diftinftion, "  Ja- 
blonjki,  has  attempted  to  prove  that  dead 

men 


(     xlvi     ) 

men  were  not  worfhipped  by  the  Egyp 
tians.  Dr.  Blackwell,  in  his  Letters  on 
Mythology  >  maintains  that  the  gods  of  the 
greater  nations  were  the  deified  parts  and 
powers  of  the  univerfe.  AndMr.  Bryant, 
fecond  to  none  in  the  knowledge  of  anti 
quity,  though  he  could  not  but  allow 
that  the  Heathens  regarded  their  own 
gods  as  deified  mortals,  yet  contends  that 
they  were  miftakenm.  To  thefe  modern 
writers  I  might  oppofe  a  great  number 
of  other  moderns  no  way  inferior  to  them ; 
but  the  queftion  before  us  muft  be  deter 
mined  by  evidence. 

There  is  another  writer11,  whom  I 
fhould  never  have  thought  of  in  any  con- 
neftion  with  thofe  already  mentioned, 
had  he  had  not  tranfcribed  the  objections 
of  Dr.  Blackwell ;  which  he  has  done 
without  acknowledging  his  obligation. 
This  gentleman  has  been  pleafed  to  ho- 

1  P.  276,  277,  278,  et  pafiira.  He  can  fcarce  be  un- 
derilood  as  fpeaking  of  the  objects  of  the  eitabliihed 
worfhip.  See  p.  209. 

m  Mr.  Bryant's  Mythology*     V.  I.  p.  454,  455. 

*  The  Rev.  J.  Fell,  in  a  treatife  entitled  Demoniacs* 

nour 


(     xlvii     ) 

nour  me  with  his  notice,  and  to  oblige 
me  with  an  uncommon  meafure  of  a- 
bufe.  With  equal  candour  and  pene 
tration  he  compliments  me  with  fmifter 
motives  and  difguifed  infidelity0.  His 
cenfures  may  do  me  credit ;  moft  cer 
tainly  they  difgrace  none  but  himfelf. 
They  difcover  to  the  world  what  fpirit  he 
is  of,  and  what  opinion  he  entertained  of 
his  own  caufe,  which  he  could  not  fup- 
port  without  the  aid  of  calumny.  There 
is  another  circumftance  in  his  conduft 
which  does  him  no  honour,  and  farther 
ferves  to  (hew  his  diftrefs  :  I  refer  to  his 
continually  perverting  my  language  from 
its  natural  and  obvious  meaning,  and  to 
his  mifreprefenting  my  fentiments  fo  grofT- 
ly,  that  I  fhould  have  often  been  at  a  lofs 
to  know  againft  whom  his  performance 
was  written,  had  he  not  informed  us. 

Whether  his  mifreprefentations  are  wil 
ful  or  not,  let  others  form  what  judge- 
mentthey  pleafe  :  it  is  a  matter  of  no  con 
cern  to  any  one  but  himfelf :  I  barely 

«  Ib.  p.  412,  413. 

Hate 


(     xlviii     ) 

Hate  the  faft.  The  account  he  has  given, 
not  only  of  my  fentiments  but  even  of 
thofe  of  the  moil  refpeftable  writers  of 
antiquity,  is  fo  very  remote  from  the 
truth,  that,  to  whatever  caufe  it  is  to  be 
afcribed,  I  determined  from  the  firft  never 
to  write  any  thing  merely  in  anfwer  to  him. 
Such  anfwer  muft  have  entirely  confifted 
In  fhewing  that  he  either  could  not  or 
would  not  underftand  the  plaineft  lan 
guage;  an  undertaking  which  could  yield 
neither  pleafure  nor  benefit  to  the  reader, 
nor  throw  any  new  light  upon  the  con- 
troverfy.  Neverthelefs,  when  I  had  re- 
folved,  on  reafons  which  had  no  relation  to 
this  gentleman,  to  lay  before  the  public 
my  view  of  the  heathen  gods,  I  judged  it 
not  improper  to  point  out  his  errors  up 
on  this  fubje<5l,  in  order  to  furnifh  a 
fpecimen  of  his  manner  of  writing,  with 
out  which  it  would  have  appeared  in 
credible  that  any  one  could  write  in 
the  manner  he  has  done.  That  part  of 
his  performance  here  animadverted  upon 
was  felefted  from  the  reft,  on  account 

of 


(     xlix     ) 

of  it's  connexion  with  the  fubjeft  of  the 
following  fheets,  and  becaufe  it  has  been 
thought  to  carry  with  it  a  greater  face 
of  probability  than  any  other.  It  is  cer 
tainly  liable  to  fewer  obje£Kons. 

Controverfies,     when    properly  con- 
dufted,  are  of  eminent  ufe  to  mankind. 
They  arreft  the  attention  more  than  ge 
neral  reafonings,  and  awaken  a  fpirit  of 
inquiry,  to  which,    under  God,  we  owe 
all  our  improvements  in  fcience,    and  e- 
very  juftidea  we  have  formed  of  religi 
on.     By  occafioning  a  more  perfefl  in- 
veftigation  of  fubjects,     they  affift  in  the 
detection  of  error  and  in  the  difcovery 
of  truth.      They  have  a  natural  tenden 
cy  to  foften  our  prejudices  againft  thofe 
who  differ  from  us  in  opinion,  by  fhew- 
ing  us  how  much  they  can  offer  in  their 
own  defence.      By   opening  and  enlar 
ging  the  mind,  they  ferve  to  cure  that  bi 
gotry,  which  is  not  peculiar  to  any  one  fe6t 
or  party,  but  common  to  all  who  have 
flrong  paflions  and  prejudices,  and  nar 
row  views  of  things,  and  who  never  read 
d  any 


(  1  ) 

any  thing  that  is  written  againft  their 
own  favourite  tenets.  On  the  other 
hand,  when  controverfies  degenerate  in 
to  perfonal  altercation  and  abufe,  or 
are  fupported  by  forced  conftruftions 
and  grofs  mifreprefentations,  they  are  a 
difgrace  to  the  parties,  and  of  no  fer- 
vice  to  the  public. 

Thbfe  mifreprefentations,  which  I  have 
had  fo  much  reafon  to  complain  of  in  o- 
thers,  I  have  ufed  the  utmoft  caution  to 
avoid  myfelf.  And  it  is  no  fmall  pre- 
fumptionof  my  care  in  this  refpeft,  that, 
notwithftanding  my  numerous  citations 
both  from  ancient  and  modern  writers, 
Dr.  Worthington,  a  gentleman  of  real 
learning,  whom  I  had  cenfured  for  his 
mifreprefentations,  (though  he  might  be 
deemed  quite  accurate  incomparifon  with 
Mr.  Fell,)  has  not,  if  my  memory  does 
not  fail  me,  retorted  the  charge,  except 
in  one  fmgle  inftance,  for  which  there 
was  no  foundation11. 

In 

P  The  following  is  the  exaft  Hate  of  the  cafe.    In  let- 
crs  to  Dr.   Worthington,  p.  112,  in  a  note,  I  faid, 


Iii  all   points  of  importance  I  have 

either  cited   the   original  words  of  my 

d  2  vouchers, 

Dr.  Mill  is  pofiti-ve,  they  (the  words  rov  HT^X-OTOC,  rov  AE- 
yeui/oe,,  him  that  bad  the  legion,  Mark  v.  15.)  are  an  in 
terpolation.  Dr.  Worthington  (in  his  Farther  Enquiry, 
p.  164.)  fays,  <f  he  turned  to  the  place  in  Dr.  Mill's 
"  New  Teftament ;  and,  to  his  great  furprife,  found 
(c  the  very  reverfe  of  what  I  had  reprefented  him  to 
ff  have  maintained."  He  adds,  "  Dr.  Mill,  in  truth, 
"  only  tells  you,  that  thefe  words  were  wanting  in  a- 
' '  bout  five  or  fix  ancient  manufcripts ;  that  the  Syriac 
"  and  Arabic  had  them ;  and  that  Grotius  thought  the 
<f  paflage  ought  to  be  retained."  Now,  if  Dr.  Mill 
on  the  place  has  only  told  us  what  others  thought  of  it, 
without  making  any  mention  of  his  own  opinion  con 
cerning  it,  how  could  Dr.  Worthington  afTert  he  had 
found  the  very  reverfe  of  what  I  had  affirmed  to  be  true  ? 
To  make  good  his  aflcrtion,  he  mould  have  fhewn,  that 
Dr.  Mill  was  pofitive  the  paflage  was  not  an  interpola 
tion.  But,  I  had  afierted  that  Dr.  Mill  was  pofitive 
that  it  was,  and  Dr.  Worthington  charges  the  aflertion 
with  deceit ;  and  concludes  with  this  admonition,  Let 
this  author  never  more  accufe  ethers  of  mifreprefentationy  p. 
165.  Had  Dr.  Worthington  looked  into  Dr.  Mill's 
prolegomena,  where  he  was  more  likely  to  find  his  fenti- 
ments  of  the  paflage  in  queftion  than  upon  the  place 
where  it  was  his  proper  bufmefs  to  ftate  the  fentiments 
of  others  concerning  it,  he  would  have  found  that  Dr. 
Mill  was,  as  I  had  affirmed,  pofitive  it  <was  an  interpola 
tion.  He  fays  it  CERTAINLY  was  a  marginal  glofs,  and 

re  j  efts 


vouchers,  or  made  particular  references 
to  them.  Their  own  words  are  cited  in 
matters  of  the  firft  moment,  that  hereby 
the  reader  may  confult  the  vouchers  him- 
felf,  which  he  may  have  no  other  op 
portunity  of  doing.  Citations  at  length, 
from  authors  who  wrote  in  the  learned 
languages,  and  are  the  chief  fupport  of 
a  caufe,  are  then  peculiarly  neceflary 
when  the  argument  depends  upon  the 
exaft  rendering  of  the  original  \vords, 

and 

rejects  the  opinion  of  Grotius,  in  the  following  terms ; 
Mar.  v.  15.  Tov  SO-XVIKOTCC  rov  teywva,,  retinendum  cenfet, 
cum  agnofcant  Syrus  et  Arabs.  Verum  abefl  a  Steph.  $ 
Cantab.  Colb.  i.  et  codice  Vulgatl\  et  utcunque  jam 
in  libros  propemodum  omnes  irrepferit,  haud  aliud  CER* 
TE  initio  erat,  quam  marginale  fcholion,  adfcriptum  e 
regione  ra  «**JEto»»{bf*i>or,  in  quod  quum  mcidifTet  mox 
fcriba,  textufque  partem  efle  crederet,  repofuit  illud  in 
inferior!  parte  fententiae,  loco  non  fuo.  Prolegom.  N* 
1361.  p.  146.  ed.  Kuiler.  1710.  And  in  N°4ii.  he 
fays  concerning  the  words  in  queftion,  commentarius  eft, 
non  textus.  Nullum  ejus  veftigium  eft  apud  Lucam, 
Marki  fedatorem.  However,  in  juflice  to  the  deceafed, 
it  ought  to  be  obferved,  that  it  is  fome  excufe  for  him 
that  I  had  omitted  to  refer  to  Dr.  Mill's  Prolegomena  ; 
which  however  he  ought  to  have  examined  before  he 
parted  his  cenfure. 


and  their  meaning  is  either  doubful  or 
difputed:  for,  in  this  cafe,  a  ftrongdefire 
of  fupporting  an  hypothefis  may  infen- 
fibly  bias  an  honeft  writer,  and  incline 
him  to  prefer  that  meaning  of  the  words 
of  his  author,  which,  though  lefs  natu 
ral,  is  moft  favourable  to  his  views.  I 
am  fo  far  therefore  from  making  an  a- 
pology  for  the  long  and  frequent  cita 
tions  from  the  authorities,  appealed  to 
on  the  principal  points,  that  I  confider 
them  as  the  chief  recommendation  of 
this  work.  In  matters  of  fecondary  mo 
ment,  though  I  have  not  cited  my  au 
thors  at  large,  yet  I  have,  as  often  as 
there  was  occafion,  made  fuch  particu 
lar  references  to  them  as  will  enable 
the  reader  to  confult  them  with  eafe  and 
without  lofs  of  time.  This  method  on 
controverted  points  is  moft  for  the  be 
nefit  of  readers.,  and  precludes  all  fuf- 
picion  of  unfair  dealing  on  the  part  of 
the  writer. 

The   contrary   proceeding  is  unfatif- 
faftory  to  thofe  accufiomed  to  examine 

general 


general  references.  It  leaves  room  to 
doubt  of  the  accuracy  of  a  writer,  how 
ever  well  affured  we  may  be  of  his  fidelity. 
And  it  is  the  moft  likely  way  to  efcape  de- 
teftion,  if  a  writer  can  fo  far  forget  his 
duty,  and  difregard  his  reputation,  as 
to  be  willing  to  impofe  upon  the  credu 
lity  of  his  readers.  This  indeed  is  a 
cafe  that  feldom  happens,  and  can  ne 
ver  happen  where  there  is  any  degree  ei 
ther  of  honour  or  of  prudence. 

How  it  fo  fell  out,  there  is  no  occafi- 
on  to  inquire,  but  certain  it  is  in  faft, 
that  a  late  writer,  though  he  fays3,  He 
hopes  feme  allowance  will  he  made  for  fre 
quent  and  necejjary  quotations,,  to  make  it  e- 
vident  that  he  does  not  impute  to  any  author 
opinions  which  he  never  maintained,  is 
remarkably  defective  in  this  refpeft.  In 
deed  he  could  not  but  be  fo  in  fome  ca 
fes  ;  I  mean,  when  his  own  voucher  did 
not  contain  the  fentiment  afcribedto  him. 
But  he  fcarce  ever  cites  the  ancients  in 
their  own  languages,  even  though  the  ar- 

a  Fell's  Demoniacs,  Introduction,  p.  viii. 

gument 


gument  depends  upon  the  exaftnefs  of 
the  tranflation.  As  to  his  references, 
for  the  moft  part  they  are  only  general, 
and  cannot  be  eafily  found  by  thofe  who 
have  moft  occafion  to  confult  them, 
fuch  as  have  only  a  {lender  acquaintance 
with  ancient  writers.  In  fome  inftances, 
I  acknowledge,  his  references  are  parti 
cular  and  exaft;  but  they  happen  to  be 
quite  otherwife  when  he  imputes  to  au 
thors,,  as  we  fhall  fee  he  does,  opinions 
'which  they  never  maintained.  Be  this  the 
effe6l  of  accident  or  defign,  it  is  cer 
tainly  a  reafon  for  reading  Mr.  Fell  with 
fmgular  caution. 


COR- 


CORRIGENDA. 

Page  125,  note  9,  line  2,  for  that  read  this. 

140,  line  13,  for  told  Herodotus  read  faid. 

142,  note  *,  for  150  m?</  156. 

152,  line  2,  raz*/,  after  whom  he  was  denomi 

nated. 

369,  note*,  line  17,  for  comical  read  conical. 
402,  note  !,  line  I,  for  inert  read  ineft. 
476,  line  2,  y$r  has 


D  E  L  E  N  D  A. 

140,  line  15,  dele  the  oldeft  of  their  gods. 

177,  line  6,  dele  and  Egyptians. 

183,  note  %  line  6,  dele  and  the  Egyptians. 

ADDENDA. 

36,  at  the  end  of  note  c,  «*/</  Voflius  de  Idolo- 

lat.  I.I.  c.  35,  p.  134. 
127,  at  the  end  of  note  y,  add  VofT.  de  Idolo 

lat.  p.  95. 

224,  at  the  end  of  note  !,  add  ^  p.  147. 
396,  not*  !3  line  2,  after  Commodo  add1^.  72. 

Corrected. 


THE 


9 


THE 

GENERAL  PREVALENCE 

0  F    T  H  E 

Worfliip  of  HUMAN  SPIRITS, 

1  N    T  H  E 

ANCIENT  HEATHEN  NATIONS, 

ASSERTED  AND  PROVED. 


|  E  F  O  R  E  I  offer  any  thing  in 
>  proof  of  the  general  worfhip 
f  human  fpirits  amongft  the 


ancient  Heathens,  it  will  be 
proper  briefly  to  review  the  account  I 
had  given  of  their  gods  in  a  former  pub 
lication3;  both  that  we  may  be  able  to 

2  Differtation  on  miracles,  ch.  III.  fe&.  ii. 

B  determine, 


2  General  Prevalence  of  the 

determine,  whether  there  be  any  perti 
nence  or  force  in  the  objeftions  which 
have  been  urged  againft  that  account  j 
and  that,  at  the  fame  time,  the  way  may 
be  prepared  for  what  I  propofe  farther 
to  advance  on  the  fubjeft  of  the  pagan 
theology. 

I.  It  was  not  only  admitted,  but  alfo 
by  a  variety  of  teftimonies  largely  proved, 
"  that  the  Heathens  deified  the  world," 
together  c<  with  it's  moft  illuftrious  parts 
cc  and  a6live  principles,  the  elements,  the 
cc  heavens  and  all  their  hoft"b.  It  was 
alfo  allowed,  that  thefe  natural  gods 
<c  were  the/Vy?  deities  of  all  theidola- 
<c  trous  nations"6.  And  therefore  to 
produce  new  proofs  of  thefe  points, 
(which  it  is  eafy  to  do,)  though  it  may 
have  the  appearance  of  oppofing,  is  in 
reality  to  confirm,  the  doftrine  of  the 
Differtation  on  miracles  concerning  the 
heathen  gods.  It  did  not  fall  in  with  the 
defign  of  that  performance,  to  treat  more 
fully  concerning  the  deification  of  the 

b  Ib.  p. 169-172.  c  P. 172. 

objefts 


Worfhip  of  human  Spirits.  3 

objects  of  nature.  But  more  than  e- 
nough*  was  faid  upon  the  fubje6t,  to 
render  it  impoffible  for  any  man  to 
doubt,  whether  I  allowed,  that  the  Hea 
thens  aflerted  the  divinity  of  nature  and 
it's  component  parts. 

II.  It  was  farther  fliewnd>  that,  be- 
fides  the  deified  parts  and  powers  of  na 
ture,  the  Heathens  acknowledged  de 
mons  :  a  term,  with  whatever  latitude6  it 
may  be  fometimes  ufed,  yet,  when  de 
mons  are  contradiftinguiftied  (as  they 
were  by  me  on  this  occafionf)  from  the 
natural  or  celeftial  gods,  always  denotes 
\hokfubaltern  deities ,  who  were  fuppofed 
to  carry  on  all  intercourfe  between  the 
celeftial  gods  and  men,  and  to  have  the 
entire  adminiftration  of  the  government 
of  this  lower  world  committed  to  them ; 
and  who  hereby  became  the  obje6ls  of 
immediate  dependence  and  divine  wor- 
ftiip.  In  this  fenfe  the  term  was  large- 

*  Seep.  231.  dP.  174, 

e  Letters  to  WortKington,  p.  29. 
f  DifTert.  on  mir.  p.  169,  174,  175. 

B  2  ly 


4  General  Prevalence  of  the 

ly  explained  in  the  Diflfertationf.  Im 
mediately  after  giving  this  explication, 
I  proceeded  to  controvert  the  opinion 
of  thofe,  who  teach,  cc  that  the  de- 
<c  mons  of  the  Heathens  were  fpirits  of 
cc  a  higher  origin  than  the  human  race"g : 
and  then  inferred,  from  the  refleftions 
which  had  been  offered,  that,  though  the 
Heathens,  and  particularly  fome  of  the 
lateft  philofophers,  fancied  there  was  a 
higher11  order  x)f  demons,  yet  that  cc  this 
<c  higher  order  of  them  is  not  fo  fre- 
<c  quently  fpoken  of  as  is  generally  fup- 
"  pofed;  and  that  the  common  hypo- 
<c  thefis  is  built  upon  weak  grounds1." 
I  then  added,  (what  clearly  fhews  how 
far  I  rejefted  that  hypothefis,) 

<c  I  fhall  now  aflign  thofe  reafons 
"which  induce  me  to  think,  that,  by 
"  demons,  (fuch,  I  mean,  as  were  the 
<c  more  immediate  objects  of  the  ejlablijhed 
cf  ivorfiip  amongft  the  ancient  nations, 

'  p.  174, 175.  s  P.  176. 

h  P.  183,  note  f.     See  alfo  note r  in  p.  204,  220. 
iP.  183. 

*c  particularly 


cc 


Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits.  5 

particularly  the  Egyptians,  Greeks, 
cc  and  Romans,)  we  are  to  underftand 
<c  beings  of  an  earthly  origin,  or  fuch 
cc  departed  human  fouls  as  were  believed 
"  to  become  demons" k. 

This  is  the  propofition  which  I  under 
took  to  eftablifh.  Here  it  is  of  great 
importance  to  obferve, 

i.  That  there  is  nothing  in  this  pro 
pofition  inconfiftent  with  allowing  (what 
had  been  before  proved)  that  the  Hea 
thens  acknowledged  and  worfhipped  ce- 
leftial  or  natural  gods.  For,  the  only 
fubjefl  of  the  propofition  is  demons ,  con- 
fidered  as  a  diftinct  order  of  deities  from 
thofe  ftiled  natural  j  and  therefore  the 
latter  could  not  be  included  in  it.  Nay, 
the  very  defcription  of  demons  as  the 
more  immediate  objects  of  worfhip  does 

k  P.  183,  184.  It  isfcarce  neceffary  to  obferve,  that 
the  fame  human  fpirits  that  were  called  demons,  when 
diflinguifhed  from  elementary  and  Udereal  deities,  as  they 
are  above  ;  yet,  on  other  occafions,  are  frequently  cal- 
ledgods.  And  fometimes  they  are  diftinguimed  from 
each  other  by  the  different  denominations  of  gods,  de 
mons,  and  heroes,  according  to  their  different  ranks. 

B  3  itfelf 


6  General  Prevalence  of  the 

itfelf  imply,  that  there  were  ultimate  ob 
jects  of  it,  who  could  be  no  other  than 
thofe  celeftial  gods,  whofe  agents  and 
minifters !  the  former  were  fuppofed  to  be. 
Farther,  \ 

2.  The  preceding  proportion  has  no 
relation  to  the  gods  held  only  by  the  phi^ 
lofophers.  The  theiitic  philofophers  not 
only  afierted  the  divinity  of  the  parts  and 
powers  of  nature,  but  explained  phyfical- 
/y,  what  was  underftood  literally  or  hifto- 
rically  by  the  people  refpefting  the  gods, 
It  may  be  allowed,  that  the  philofophers 
entertained  very  juft  notions  of  the  true 
God ;  and  that  they  defcribed  him  and 
the  natural  gods  by  the  term  demon; 
(which  is  indeed  fometimes  ufed  in  a 
large  fenfe  as  equivalent  to  a  deity™.}  But 
all  thefe  gods  are  out  of  the  queftion. 
The  term  demons  is  ufed  in  the  propofi- 
tion  in  a  reftrained  fenfe,  to  exprefs  the 
fubaltern  deities,  and  was  fo  explained, 
It  is  limited  to  fuch  demons  as  were  the 

1  Diflert.  onmir.  p.  174,  175. 
m  Letters  to  Worthington,  p.  29, 

obje6ls 


Worjhip  of  human  Spirits.  7 

objefts  of  the  eftablijhed  worfiip  ;  or  (as 
it  is  elfewhere  exprefTed)  of  popular  ado 
ration"  and  public  devotion*  to  whom  a- 
lone  the  facrifices  were  offered,  (while  the 
cdejlial  gods  were  worjhipped  only  with  a 
pure  mind,  or  with  hymns  and praifes.0) 

3.  The  truth  of  the  foregoing  propo- 
fition  cannot  be  affe6ted  by  the  peculiar 
doftrine  of  the  philofophers  concerning  de 
mons,  when  they  apply  the  term  to  fpi- 
rits  who  were  fuppofed  to  hold  a  middle 
rank  between  the  gods  and  men.  It  was 
admitted  and  proved  in  the  Differtation/ 
that  fome  of  the  philofophers  did  affert  the 
exiftence  of  demons  of  a  celeftial  origin, 
or  of  fuch  as  had  never  been  men.  Many 
more  proofs  of  the  fame  point  might  have 
•been  produced,  had  the  occafion  required 
them.  Buttheopinion  of  the  philofophers 
concerning  the  exiftence  of  celeftial  de 
mons,  even  fuppofing  it  to  be  true,  cannot 
difprove  the  truth  of  the  propofition  un 
der  confideration,  unlefs  it  can  be  (hewn. 


»P.  1 86. 


P.  176. 

B4 


P  Note  h  above, 

that 


8  General  Prevalence  of  the 

that  thefe  demons  were  the  objefts  of  the 
national  eftablifhed  worfhip  amongft  the 
Heathens.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than 
that  the  propofition  only  affirms,  that 
the  demons  defcribed  in  it  were  beings 
of  an  earthly  origin.  Every  objection 
therefore,  that  is  drawn  from  what  any 
of  the  ancients  taught  concerning  de 
mons  that  do  not  anfwer  to  that  de- 
fcription,  muft  be  foreign  from  the 
point q. 

4.  When  the  propofition  fpeaks  of 
fuch  demons  as  were  the  more  immedi 
ate  objefts  of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  a- 
mongft  the  ancient  nations;  this  can 
refpe6l  only  thofe  nations  in  which  feme 
demons  or  fubaltern  deities,  either  celef- 
tial  or  terreftrial,  were  acknowledged. 
The  propofition  fuppofes  this  to  be  the 
cafe  in  feveral  nations,  and  particularly 
fpecifies  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Ro 
mans,  but  without  excluding  all  other 
people.  It  is  capable  of  being  extended 

s  Compare  what  is  faid  concerning  the  philofophers, 
PiiTert,  p.  189,  150, 

to 


Worfhip  of  human  Spirits.  g 

to  all  who,    befides   the  natural  gods, 
worfhipped  demons. 

Neverthelefs,  1  had  a  more  efpecial  re 
ference  to  the  nations  that  were  in  the 
moft  civilized  ftate,  and  to  thofe  whofe 
demons  are  fpoken  of  in  Scripture.  It 
was  faid  in  exprefs  terms',  cc  that  my 
"  main  defign  would  be  anfwered,  if  it 
<c  could  be  fliewn,  that  the  more  imme- 
<c  diate  objefts  of  divine  worfhip  In  the 
cc  moft  polifhed  heathen  nations  were  deified 
"  mortals."  And  that  I  had  a  peculiar 
view  to  the  nations  whofe  demons  are 
fpoken  of  in  Scripture,  appears  from  the 
declaration8,  that  my  main  defign  was  to 
explain  andjujtify  the  Scripture  rcprefenta- 
tion  of  the  heathen  deities ;  from  the  title 
of  the  fe6Hon  in  which  this  fubje6l  is 
handled,  'The  Scripture  reprefentation  of 
the  nature  and  claims  of  the  heathen  gods, 
confidered* ',  from  the  words  that  intro 
duce  the  feftion,  and  ftate  the  fubje6l  of 
it,  The  gods  of  the  Heathens  taken  notice  of 
in  Scripture*;  and  from  the  apology"  made 

r  Diflert.  p.  185,       » Ibid.        *  P.  169.        «  P.  23?, 

for 


j  o  General  Prevalence  of  the 

for  the  long  account  given  of  them,  it's 
importance  to  a  juft  defence  of  the  Scripture. 
The  nations,  to  whofe  gods  the  Scriptures 
refer,  are  thofe  which  bordered  upon 
Judea,  or  in  which  Chriftian  churches 
were  planted ;  and  thefe  were  of  all  o- 
thers  the  moft  improved  in  fcience. 

To  thefe  nations  my  views  were  con 
fined,  and  from  them  my  proofs  were 
drawn.  Nor  can  the  propofition  be  ex 
tended  to  the  nations  ftiled  barbarous,  if 
they  worfhipped  only  the  natural  gods. 
To  fuch  nations  thefe  gods  were  not  the 
Tiltimate,  but  the  fole,  objefts  of  worfhip. 
And  no  one  could  be  fo  abfurd  as  to  fet 
himfelf  to  prove,  that  thofe,  who  had  no 
demons  of  any  kind,  worfhipped  one 
particular  fpecies  of  demons.  It  was  ad 
mitted  w,  that,  in  the  opinion  of  Plato, 
many  (notmojl,  as  Mr.  Fell*  mifmterprets 
the  original7)  of  the  Barbarians  in  his 

time 

*  Id.  p.  173,  note  f.  *  P.  9. 

y  IIo^oi  ruv  $4(<4p0w.  Platon.  Cratyl.  torn.  i.  p.  397, 
C.  ed.  Serrani,  1578.  This  language  may  import  no 
more  than  that,  amongfl  the  barbarous  people  bordering 

upon 


Worjhip  of  human  Spirits.          1 1 

time  held  only  the  natural  gods.  It 
could  not  be  my  intention  to  include  fuch 
Barbarians  in  the  proportion. 

Let  us  now  examine  whether  a  late 
writer  has  given  a  juft  account  of  this 
fubjeft.  He  has  twice  referred  to  the 
preceding  proportion,  and  cited  a  part 
of  it,  but  with  fuch  alterations  or  omif- 
fions  as  effe&ually  difguife  it's  true 
meaning.  When  he  is  oppofing  my  notion 
of  the  heathen  gods,  he  omits  the  word 
demons  f  though  thefe  fubaltern  gods 
were,  as  I  have  {hewn,  the  only  fubjeils 
of  the  propofition.  And,  when  he  is  pro 
ving  that  the  Heathens  had  demons  of  a 
different  kind  from  thofe  of  human  ex 
tract,  (a  point  admitted  by  me,)  he  fup- 
preffes a  all  the  words  in  the  propofition 

upon  Greece,  there  were  feveral  tribes  which  ftill  wor- 
ihipped  only  the  elements  and  heavenly  bodies.  This 
was  not  true  concerning  the  great  nations  in  general;  (as 
will  be  Ihewn  in  the  fequel;)  to  thefe  therefore  Plato 
cannot  refer,  His  expreflion  implies,  that  the  polimed 
nations  acknowledged  other  gods  befides  the  natural; 
and  that  fome  at  leail  cf  the  barbarians  did  fo  too. 

2  Fell,  p.  30. 

a  jFell,  p.  91.  Comp.  DiiTert.  on  mir.  p.  183. 

which 


1 2  General  Prevalence  of  the 

which  were  inferted  to  fhew,  that  it  re- 
fpefted  only  fuch  demons  as  were  the  more 
immediate  objeffs  of  the  ejtablijhed  worjhip'm 
certain  nations.  To  point  out  the  limi 
tation  of  the  propofition  to  thefe  demons, 
the  words  that  exprefs  it  were  printed  in 
Italics,  as  they  are  above*.  Neverthelefs, 
his  objeftions  proceed  on  the  falfe  fuppo- 
fition,  that  the  propofition  was  to  be 
underftood  univerfally  of  all  demons. 

Befides  mutilating  the  propofition  un 
der  confideration,  in  a  manner  that  muft 
miflead  his  readers  in  the  judgement  they 
formed  of  it,  and  confequently  of  the 
main  point  in  debate;  the  gentleman 
has  placed  another  propofition  before 
them,  and  left  them  to  fuppofe  it  to 
be  mine  in  it's  moft  unlimited  fignifica- 
tion.  <c  No  opinion,"  he  obferves% 
<c  can  be  more  erroneous  than  this,  That 
<c  all  the  pagan  deities  had  once  been  men" 
In  what  part  of  the  Differtation,  this,  or 
any  fuch,  affertion  is  to  be  found,  the 
gentleman  has  not  informed  his  readers : 

*  P.  4.  *  pell,  p.  30. 

an 


Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits.          1 3 

an  omiffion  with  which  he  is  often  charge 
able.  He  might  poffibly  have  in  view  here 
(as  he  has  elfe where)  the  placedin  which 
it  is  affirmed,  that  the  writers  of  the  Old 
Teftament  cc  very  properly  defcribed  the 
<c  heathen  gods  as  */<?*&/ perfonsj"  and  that 
they  were  c<  nothing  more."6  But  it  is  at 
the  very  fame  time  obferved,  "  that  the 
<c  writers  of  the  Old  Teftament  knew, 
cc  that  the  Heathens  believed  in  elemen- 
<c  tary  and  fidereal  deities  j"  and  that  the 
reafon  why  they  defcribed  their  gods  as 
dead  perfons  was,  "  becaufe  it  was  to 
cc  fuch  that  the  public  worfliip  was  more 
"  immediately  dire£ted/3f  Under  this  li 
mitation,  or  with  refpeft  to  thofe  de 
mons  whom  I  had  defcribed  as  the  more 
immediate  obje6ls  of  public  worfhip,  I 
muft  be  underftood  as  fpeaking,  when, 
upon  the  authority  of  the  facred  writers 
(as  will  be  fhewn  hereafter)  I  reprefented 

d  DiiTert.  p.  197.  «  Ib.  note  h. 

f  I  might  have  added,  that  thefe  gods  did  in  a  great 
ineafure  ingrofs  the  public  devotion.  (See  Differ t.  p. 
276.) 

the 


1 4  General  Prevalence  of  the 

the  heathen  gods  as  nothing  more  than 
dead  perfons.  What  was  fpoken  pro- 
fefledly  concerning  one  clafs  or  order  of 
gods,  as  contradiftinguifhed  from  ano~ 
thery  could  not,  by  fair  reafoning,  be 
applied  to  both.  If  any  fuch  general  ex- 
preffions  as  that  we  have  been  exami 
ning,  occur  in  any  other  part  of  the 
DifTertation  ;  which  (if  ever)  they  very 
rarely  do,  and  then  only  incidentally, 
they  ought  in  all  reafon  to  be  limited  to 
the  fubjefts  of  the  propofition,  in  which 
I  was  profefledly  ftating  the  point  I 
meant  to  eftablifh ;  efpecially  as  terms 
expreffive  of  this  limitation  are  almoft 
always  ufed,  in  order  to  guard  againft 
miftakes  ;  and  frequent  explicit  acknow 
ledgements  are  made  of  the  Heathens  af~ 
ferting  the  divinity  of  the  elements  and 
heavenly  bodies*.  Could  I  conceive  it 
poffible,  that  I  fhould  be  charged  (as  I 
am  in  effect)  with  affirming,  that  the 
following  heathen  gods,  the  fun,  moon, 
and  ftars,  and  the  elements  of  fire,  air, 
earth,  and  water,  were  nothing  more  than 

*  See  Difiert.  p.  231-233. 

dead 


Worfljip  of  human  Spirits.  i  $ 

dead  men  ?  No  one  can  faften  fuch  an 
abfurdity  upon  me,  but  by  explaining 
the  Diflertation,  as  too  many  do  the 
Scriptures,  as  if  it  was  cotnpofed  of  dif- 
tinft  independent  fentences,  that  have 
no  connexion  with  each  other. 

Farther,  Mr.  Fell  frequently  makes 
an  addition  to  my  text,  and  inferts 
into  it  the  word  all,  without  any  war 
rant  -,  particularly  in  the  following  paf- 
fage  :  tc  Mr.  Farmer  would  make  us  be- 
<c  lieve,  that  Herodotus  meant  to  fay, 
<c  that  the  Greeks  looked  upon  all  their 
<c  gods  to  have  been  of  the  human 
"  race."8  I  muft  add,  that,  when  heh 
fpeaks  of  "  the  fyftem  which  reprefents 
cc  all  demons  as  nothing  more  than  the 
cc  fpirits  of  departed  men"  ;  he  manifeftly 
refers  to  me,  though  my  fyftern  neither 
makes,  nor  requires,  fuchareprefentation. 

By  the  feveral  methods  here  fpecified, 
and  others  of  a  fimilar  nature,  the  gen 
tleman  conveys  into  the  minds  of  his 

8  Fell,  p.  27,  28.  Differt.  p.  186,  187. 
h  Fell's  ititrodu&ion,  p.  xv. 

readers 


1 6  General  Prevalence  of  the 

readers  a  falfe  impreffion  of  the  main 
point  I  undertook  to  eftablifh.  This 
impreffion  is  continually  renewed  and  ri- 
vetted  by  the  general  ftrain  of  his  rea- 
foning ;  which  fuppofes  that  I  meant  to 
prove,  <c  that  all  the  heathen  gods  were 
"  human  fpirits";  and  not  merely  (as 
was  the  real  cafe)  "  that  the  demons  of  a 
<c  certain  defcription  were  fuch."  There 
are  but  few  fo  very  dull  of  apprehenfion, 
as  not  to  perceive  the  difference  between 
thefe  two  propofitions ;  or  to  want  to  be 
informed,  that  arguments,  which  may 
overturn  the  former,  cannot  affeft  the 
latter.  This  mifreprefentation  of  the 
point  upon  which  the  whole  argument 
turns  (had  there  been  no  other  inftance 
of  mifreprefentation  to  produce)  might 
well  juftify  me  in  faying,  that  I  fhould 
not  have  known  againft  whom  Mr.  Fell 
was  writing,  had  he  fupprefTed  my 
name.  Neverthelefs,  the  gentleman 
:fets  out  (in  a  manner  well  calcula 
ted  to  prevent  all  fufpicion  of  unfair 
dealing)  with  (hewing  of  what  impor 
tance 


Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits.  17 

tance  it  is,  that  thofe  'who  differ  In  their 
fentimentS)  'when  they  write  one  agalnjl  an 
other,  Jhould  calmly  and  EXACTLY  Jlate  the 
particular  articles  concerning  'which  they 
differ?  Why  did  not  the  gentleman  fol 
low  this  ufeful  and  necefTary  rule  ? 

But  I  will  not  animadvert  upon  his 
conduft;  only,  injuftice  tomyfelf,  muft 
obferve,  that  his  mutilating  my  propo- 
fition  5  his  fubftituting  another  in  it's 
room,  without  taking  any  notice  of  it's 
neceflary  limitation  ;  and  his  making  ad 
ditions  to  my  text ;  thele  feveral  circum- 
ftances  are  a  tacit  confeffion,  that  he 
could  not  fupport  his  account  of  my  fen- 
timents  by  any  fair  conftru6lion  of  my 
language.  If  his  mifreprefentations  are 
mere  miftakes,  they  are  (in  fome  fenfe) 
fortunate  miftakes  for  him  ;  being  ap 
parently  neceflary  to  give  a  colour  to  his 
reafonings,  and  to  procure  for  himfelf 
the  appearance  of  a  vi6lory  over  his  op 
ponent  :  for,  had  the  fubjeft  been  truly 

1  Fell's  introduction,  p.  viii.  ix. 

C  ftated, 


1 8  General  Prevalence  of  the 

Hated,  thefe  ends  could  not  have  been 
anfvvered  ;  and  his  readers  would  have 
fmiled  at  the  fatisfaftion  and  confidence, 
with  which  he  urges  objeftions  foreign 
from  the  purpofe. 

Mr.  Fell k  begins  with  appealing  to  the 
ancient  theogonies,  particularly  that  of 
Hefiod,  in  order  to  prove,  that  the  great ejl 
fart  of  thofe  deities  to  whom  the  Heathens 
facrificed  were  by  them  con/idered  as  exijt- 
ing  prior  to  the  creation  of  man.     An  argu 
ment  of  this  fort   from   the  theogonies 
was  fuggefted  by  the  learned  and  inge 
nious  author  of  Letters  concerning  Mytho 
logy,   univerfally  afcribed  to  Dr.  Black- 
well, 

*  p.  i. 

1  P.  211,  212,  213.  Whoever  is  defirous  of  feeing 
how  clofely  Mr.  Fell  copies  Dr.  Blackwell,  may  com 
pare  together  the  following  paflages.  In  p.  212,  the 
doctor  fays,  Hefeod's  theogony — isfulftantially  the  fame  with 
Orpheus's  holy  word,  — in  which  he  (Orpheus)  explained 
points  of  no  lefs  importance  than  the  births  of  the  gods,  the 
creation  of  the  world,  and  formation  of  man.  Mr.  Fell, 
p.  5,  adopts  his  language ;  (with  only  fuch  an  alteration 
of  it  as  mews  his  defire  of  concealing  his  obligation ;) 
His  (Hefiod's)  theogony  contains  the  fame  plan  with  that 
afcribtdto  Orpheus*— They  (Hefiod,  Orpheus,  and  others) 


Worjhip  of  human  Spirits.  19 

Well,  but  employed  by  him  to  a  more 
reafonable  purpofe  than  by  Mr.  FelL 
The  former,  if  I  underfland  him  a- 
right,  urges  it  only  to  prove,  that 
the  Heathens  deified  nature  and  it's  va 
rious  parts  arid  powers,  and  that  thefe 
were  their  primary  gods.  Both  thefe 
propofitions  were  admitted  by  me  ;  and 
the  former  of  them  is  capable  of  the 
cleareft  proof  m.  But  the  argument,  as 
ftated  and  applied  by  Mr.  Fell,  is  not 
only  founded  upon  a  bold,  not  to  fay 
falfe,  aflertion n ;  but  has  no  relation  to 
C  2  the 

«//  attempt  to  explain  things  of  no  lefs  moment  than  the  ori 
ginal  of  their  godsy  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  the  for" 
mat  ion  of  man. 

m  See  above,  p.  2. 

11  Mr.  Fell  aflerts,  "  that  the  greateft  pan  of  thofe 
"  deities,  to.  whom  the  Heathens  facrificed,  were  by 
((  them  confidered  as  exifting  prior  to  the  creation  of 
«f  man."  The  number  of  the  heathen  gods  was  com 
paratively  fmall  at  firft  ;  but  they  increafed  afterwards, 
to  fuch  a  degree,  that  the  wretched  Atlas  could  fcarce 
fupport  the  weight  of  fo  many  new  divinities. 
_ —  n  Contentaque  fidera  paucis 


Numinibus  miferum  urgebant  Atlanta  minori 
Pondere.     Juvenal.  Sat.  xiii.  v.  47. 


The 


2o  General  Prevalence  of  the 

the  proper  point  in  difpute.  The  quef- 
tion  is  not,  whether  the  Heathens  belie 
ved  in  gods  of  an  earlier  origin  than  the 
human  race  ;  but,  whether  fuch  demons 
as  were  the  more  immediate  objefts  of 
the  eftablifhed  worfhip  in  certain  na 
tions  were  not  dead  men.  Hefiod  him- 
felf  (to  whom  Mr.  Fell  appeals)  fhall 
decide  the  controverfy:  for,  (as  our 
great  chronologer  obferves,0)  Hefiod p, 
describing  the  four  ages  of  the  gods  and 
demigods  of  Greece,  reprefents  them  to 
be  four  generations  of  men.  I  add,  that 
Plato q  had  long  before  taken  notice,  that 
all  thofe  'who  die  valiantly  in  'war  are  of 
Hejiod's  golden  generation,  and  become  de- 

The  men  of  the  golden  age,  who  became  demons,  were 
thirty  thoufand,  Hefiod.  Oper.  et  Dier.  1.  i.  v.  250. 
But  thefe  were  nothing  in  companion  with  the  valt 
number  of  human  fpirits  which  were  worlhipped  in  dif 
ferent  parts  of  the  world  :  for  moil  nations  facrificed  at 
the  tombs  of  their  anceftors,  and  to  their  domeftic  gods. 
See  Varro,  concerning  the  dii  manes,  ap.  Auguft.  Civ. 
Dei,  1.  8,  c.  26. 

0  Sir  If.  Newton,  Chron.  p.  162. 

P  Oper.  et  Dier.  1.  i,  v.  108. 

*  De  Rep.  1.  5,  p.  469.     Diflert.  on  mir.  p.  191. 

mons ; 


Worftip  of  human  Spirits.  21 

mom  -,  and  that  ive  ought  for  ever  to  ivor- 
Jhip  and  adore  their  fepukhres  as  the  fepul- 
chres  of  demons. 

But  I  do  not  propofe  to  examine 
all  the  objections  of  this  gentleman 
by  themfelves.  Opportunities  of  a- 
nimadverting  upon  them  will  occur 
in  the  execution  of  my  plan,  with 
out  my  going  out  of  the  way  to  meet 
them.  My  defign  is  to  fhew  at  large, 
that  human  fpirits  were  generally  wor- 
Ihipped  by  the  ancient  Heat  heps.  The 
proofs  of  this  point  either  refpe6l  parti 
cular  nations,  or  are  of  a  more  general 
nature,  and  equally  refpeft  all  the  moft 
celebrated  nations  of  antiquity.  It  is 
with  the  objects  of  woifhip  in  the  latter 
that  we  are  beft  acquainted ;  and  to 
them  all  men  more  peculiarly  refer,  when 
they  fpeak  in  general  of  the  heathen 
gods.  In  the  courfe  of  our  argument  it 
will  be  fhewn,  that,  in  thefe  nations, 
not  only  were  dead  men  and  women  dei 
fied,  but  that  fuch  deities  were  confidered 
C  3  as 


2  2  General  Prevalence  of  the 

as  their  greateft  gods,  and  even  as  the 
fole  objefts  of  the  eftabliftied  worfhip,  al- 
moft,  if  not  altogether,  without  excep 
tion.  I  mean,  that  it  was  to  human 
gods  that  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  was 
more  immediately  and  properly  directed, 
in  all,  or  almoft  all,  cafes  whatfoever. 
What  reference  it  had  to  the  deified  parts 
or  powers  of  nature  will  not  come  under 
confideration  here. 

I  {hall  begin  with  laying  before  the 
reader  thofe  proofs  of  the  worfhip  of  hu 
man  fpirits,  amongfl  the  ancient  Hea 
thens,  which  refpe6t  particular  nations. 
The  ancient  gentile  nations  may  be  divi 
ded  into  two  claffes,  fuch  as  are  ufually 
accounted  barbarous,,  and  fuch  as  were 
folijhed  by  learning.  And  I  propofe  to 
prove,  by  heathen  teftimonies,  that  in 
mo/1  of  the  former,  and  in  all  the  latter, 
divine  honours  were  paid  to  the  dead, 

CHAP, 


Worfiip  of  human  Spirits.          23 

C  H  A  P.     I. 

Proving^  from  the  teftimonies  of  the 
Heathens  3  that  they  paid  religious 
honours  to  dead  men  in  the  na~ 
tions  fitted  barbarous,  or  that 
were  in  an  uncivilized  flat  e. 


HOUGH  in  treating,  in  a  former 
publication,  of  fuch   heathen   de 
mons  as   were  the  objefts  of  eftablifhed 
worfhip,  I  had  no  direft  view  to  the  bar 
barous  nations  ;  and  though  the  propo- 
fition  I  then  undertook  to  prove  could 
have  no  refpeft  to  fuch  of  them  as  did 
not  acknowledge   any  demons';    yet  a 
late  opponent  fancied  he  fliould  refute 
me,  if  he  could  fhew  that  fome  of  thefe 
nations  worfhipped    only    the  natural 
gods.     The  attempt  was  not  very  judi 
cious  •  what  his  fuccefs  is,  will  be  feen 

'  Above,  p,  8-1  1. 

C  4  hereafter. 


24          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

hereafter.  I  fhall  firft  of  all  examine, 
whether  human  fpirits  were  worfhipped 
in  the  barbarous  nations  taken  notice  of 
by  Mr.  Fell ;  and  then  inquire  how  far 
this  was  the  cafe  with  thofe  which  he  has 
omitted. 

SECT.     I. 

Shewing,  from  theteftimony  of  the  Heathens, 
that  moft  even  of  thofe  barbarous  nations, 
which  have  been  faid  to  worJhip  only  the 
natural  gods >  paid  divine  honours  to  de* 
ceafed  men. 

TN  the  eight  barbarous  nations  that 
follow,  the  Scythians,  the  Maflage- 
tes,  the  Getes,  the  Goths,  the  Germans, 
the  Perfians,  the  Arabians,  and  the  in 
habitants  of  Meroe,  no  deceafed  heroes 
were  worfhipped,  according  to  a  late 
writer. 

I,  With  refpeft  to  the  Scythians,  we 
are  told  by  Herodotus',  that  the  only 

gods 


in  barbarous  Nations.  25 

gods  whom  they  all  worftiipped,  were 
principally  Vefta,  called  by  them  Tahiti  ; 
then  Jupiter  and  his  wife  Gee  the  earth, 
denominating  the  firft  Papteus,  the  fe- 
cond  Apia  ,  and  after  thefe  Apollo  and  the 
celeftial  Venus  (called  in  their  language 
Oetofyrus  and  Artimpafa)  -,  and  Hercules 
and  Mars.  The  hiflorian  adds,  that  the 
royal  Scythians  facrifice  alfo  to  Neptune. 
Mr.  FelF,  copying  after  Dr.  Black- 
well  W3  confiders  Oetofyrus  and  Artimpafa 
as  the  names  of  the  fun  and  moon  ;  and 
explains  Hercules  and  Mars  by  the  powers 
of  'war.  Though  I  feel  the  weight  of  Dr, 
Blackwell's  authority,  yet  it  cannot,  I 
apprehend,  be  proved  from  Herodotus, 
that  the  Scythians  worfhipped  the  parts 
and  powers  of  nature  exclufively  of  hu 
man  fpirits,  or  even  that  the  latter  were 
not  the  immediate  objects  of  their  wor- 
fhip.  Mofl  of  the  Scythian  gods  (if  not 


T«T»$,      vrohhuvix,  TE, 
at  Apja*  Tars?  piv  TrastTHj  o» 
)3acriX>3«oi  ZxvSai  x«»  TW  n*NTlllii«H  St;ycr».     «.  T.  X.   Herodot. 

I.  4-  c-  59- 

«  P.  8.  w  "Mythol.  p.  274,  275. 

all) 


26          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

all)  fpecified  by  Herodotus    were  wor- 
fhipped  by  the  Greeks,  and  by  them  were 
confidered  as  human  perfonages.     Now, 
inafmuch  as  Herodotus,    we   may  well 
fuppofe,  calls  the  gods  of  Scythia  by  the 
names   of  the  correfpondent  deities  of 
Greece  ;  if  the  latter  were   deified  men 
and  women,  the  former  muft  be  fo  like- 
wife.     This  general  reafon  will  be  con 
firmed  by  a  diftincl  examination  of  each 
particular  deity.      The   Scythians  chal 
lenged  Jupiter  as  the  progenitor  of  their 
king,  and  Vejla^  their  principal  deity,  for 
their  queen11:  a  plain  proof  that  they  con 
fidered  them  as  having  reigned  over  them 
upon  earth.     Gee  being  the  wife  of  Ju 
piter,  was  certainly  conceived  to  be  of 
the  fame  nature  with  him  ;  and  feems  to 
anfvver  to  the  Herthum  of  the  Germans, 
the  Cybele  of  the  Phrygians,  and  the 
goddefs  Gee  fpoken  of   by  Sanchonia- 
thon,  who  will  be  feverally  confidered  in 


Indathyrfus,    king  of  Scythia,    fays, 
Aia  re  tyu  ro/tt*£0  rov  tpov  fsr^oyovntj   KOH  Iri»jr  T»JV  £xf- 

;  wcu,    Herodot,  1.  4.  c.  127. 

the 


in  barbarous  Nations.  27 

the  fequel7.  It  will  likewife  be  fhewn 
that  the  celeftial  Venus  of  the  eaftern  na 
tions  was  a  native  of  earth :  fuch  there 
fore  muft  have  been  Apollo*  ^  who  is  joined 
with  her.  With  both  thefe  the  hiftorian 
joins  Hercules  and  Mars ;  which  (hews 
they  could  not  be  gods  of  different  or 
ders.  That  Mars  at  leaft  was  worfhip- 
ped  by  the  Scythians  under  a  human 
charafter,  appears  from  their  dedicating 
to  him  images*  as  well  as  altars  and  tem 
ples.  And  as  to  Neptune ',  it  will  not 
be  difputed  that  he  was  no  other  than  a 
deified  man.  He  will  be  fpoken  of  in  the 
fequel.  I  add,  that  Lucian1,  who  had 

full 

y  Herthum  in  article  V.  of  this  fe&ion;  Cybele  in 
the  fecond  fe&ion,  under  article  III.  and  Gee  in  the 
fecond  chapter,  article  Phenicians. 

2  Though  Apollo,  phyfically  explained,  was  the 
fun,  yet  hiftorically  underftood  he  was  a  diftincl:  deity  ? 
as  js  {hewn  in  Schedius,  De  Diis  German,  p.  94. 

*  AyMXpctta,  OE  xat  j3w//,8$  xat  vy,ti<;}    K.  T-  At    Herodot,    I. 

4.  c.  59.  See  what  is  faid  below  concerning  the  Mars 
of  the  Goths  and  other  northern  nations  under  article 
JV.  and  concerning  Hercules  under  article  V.  in  this 
fec~Uont 

*  Scytha  feu  Hofpes,  Oper,  v.  I.  p.  591,  592,  et  feq. 

ed. 


28          Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

full  information  concerning  the  Scythi 
ans,  exprefsly  teftifies,  that  ^they  raifed 
Zamolxis,  their  ancient  legiflator,  and 
other  illuftrious  men  into  the  rank  of 
gods. 

II.  cc  The  Maffagetes,  their  neigbours," 
fays  Mr.  Fellc,  in  agreement  with  Dr. 
Blackwell,  <c  adored  no  gods  but  the 
"  fun."  The  MafTagetes  were  fava- 
ges  upon  the  borders  of  the  Cafpian  fead; 
and  there  is  no  more  reference  to  their 
gods  in  the  DifTertation,  than  to  thofe  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Otaheite.  I  cannot 
however  help  making  the  following  ob- 
fervations. 

Herodotus  %  who  is  the  only  author 
referred  to  by  Dr.  Blackwell,  and  after 
him  by  Mr.  Fell,  in  proof  of  their  af- 
fertion,  fpoke  from  report  only.  And 
it  is  generally  allowed,  that  this  hifto- 
rian,  however  faithful  he  may  be  in  re 
ed.  Amftel.  1687.  See  alfo  v.  2.  p.  713.  et  Tertullian. 
de  Anima,  c.  2. 

c  P.  8,  9.     Compare  Blackwell's  Myth.  p.  275, 

*  Herodot.  lib.  i.  c.  201,  204. 

*  Lib.  i.  c.  216. 

lating 


in  barcaroles  Nations .  29 

lating  fafts  which  came  within  his  own 
knowledge,  gave  too  eafy  Credit  to  what 
was  reported  to  him   by  others  :    which 
renders   his  teftimony  doubtful  in  the 
cafe  before  us.     Befides,  the  MafTagetes 
might  be  faid  to  worfhip  only  the   fun, 
in  contradiftinftion  to  the  other  celeftial 
luminaries,  and  not  to  mortal  gods.    Or 
the  hiftorian  might  only  mean,  that  the 
fun  was  eminently  the  objeft  of  their  de 
votion  ;  in  which  fenfe,  as  we  fhall  fee, 
fimilar  language  was  ufed  concerning  the 
Perfians.     It  is  remarkable,  that  we  find 
the  MafTagetes  fwearing  by  the  fun  un 
der  the  character  of  their  fovereign f .     It 
was  an  opinion  propagated  in  the  rude 
ages  of  the  world,  that  the  fouls  of  emi 
nent  perfons  became  celeftial  luminaries. 
And  thefe  Barbarians  might  be  led  to  be 
lieve,  that  the  fun  was  the  foul  of  the 
firft  founder  and  fovereign  of  their  nati 
on  j  or,  at  leaft,    that  it  was   inhabited 
by  fome  beneficent  patron  who  was  ap- 

f  HAio>  iTrofAWfAi  rof  TO>  Macnyct,ysriut  Siffitdrw*   Herodot. 
1.    I.    C.  212.  ^ 

pointed 


3  o         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

pointed  to  rule  in  it  for  their  peculiar 
benefit.  That  they  did  not  in  any  view 
whatever  worfhip  human  fpirits,  will 
fcarce  appear  credible  to  thofe  who  con- 
iider,  that  the  Maflagetes  were  a  part 
of  the  Celtesc,  amongft  whom  this  wor 
fhip  prevailed*  If  they  were  a  tribe 
of  Scythians,  as  fome  affirmed11,  their 
patron-deity  was  Zamolxis.  But  thefe 
circumftances  are  urged  rather  as 
conjeftures,  than  as  decifive  proofs  $ 
and  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  the  peo 
ple,  of  whom  we  are  fpeaking,  were 
worfhippers  of  dead  men. 

Hitherto  we  have  feen  Mr.  Fell  copy 
ing  Dr.  Blackwell ;  but,  under  the  next 
article,  he  appears  to  me  under  the  cha* 
rafter  of  a  writer  truly  original. 

III.  "  The  Getes,"  fays  Mr.  Fell1, 
ce  efteemed  the  heavens  to  be  the  only 
<c  deity."  In  fupport  of  this  affertion, 
he  makes  a  general  reference  to  the  Clio 


«  See  below,  Sea.  II. 
h  Herodot.  1.  I.  c.  201. 

•  p.  9. 


of 


in  barbarous  Nations.  3 1 

of  Herodotus,  but  without  informing 
his  readers  in  what  particular  chapter, 
or  in  what  page,  of  that  book  he  found 
it ;  though  this,  furely,  would  have 
been  as  eafy  as  to  direft  his  readers  to 
the  very  line k  in  Hefiod  in  which  his  ci 
tations  from  him  may  be  found. 

I  have  lately  read  over  the  whole  hif- 
tory  of  Herodotus ;  and  think  I  can 
affirm,  with  certainty,  that  there  is  no 
fuch  paflage,  in  any  part  of  this  hifto- 
rian,  as  that  which  Mr.  Fell  quotes  as 
his.  That  there  can  be  no  fuch  paffage 
in  him  as  that  in  queftion,  is  capable  of 
very  clear  proof.  The  Getes  were  a  part 
of  the  Thracians  '.  Now,  the  latter, 
as  will  be  fhewn  in  the  fequel,  did  cer 
tainly  worfliip  Zamolxis  ;  and  therefore 
very  probably  the  former  did  fo  too. 
But,  what  is  more  material,  and  indeed 
quite  decifive,  it  appears  from  Herodo 
tus  himfelf,  to  whom  Mr.  Fell  appeals, 

k  Fell,  p.  i,  2,  3,  notes  %  b,  c,  rf,  f,   f, 
1  Herodot.  1.  4,  c.  93, 

that 


$2  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

that  the  Getes  propitiated  m  the  god 
molxis  $  and,  in  time  of  thunder  and 
lightning,  threatened  this  deity,  believing 
there  was  no  other  god  but  theirs  n. 

Many  other  Greek  writers,  of  the  firft 
reputation,  contradift  Mr.  Fell's  affer- 
tion,  that  the  Getes  efteemed  the  hea 
vens  to  be  the  only  deity.  When  Plato 
introduces  a  Thracian  aflerting  the  di 
vinity  °  of  their  king  Zamolxis,  he  is 
fuppoftd  to  refer  to  the  Getes,  as  well  as 
to  the  other  inhabitants  of  Thrace. 
Strabop,  in  more  places  than  one>  fpeaks 
of  Zamolxis  the  Pythagorean  as  a  deity, 
and  one  acknowledged  as  fuch  by  the 
Getes.  Lucian  q  makes  mention  cf  him 

ft  TWt  3k  fotug  o  5=05  £bx£C»  £"«»•      Heroddt.  1.  4.  C.  94. 


TO>  a-fynEgoV'       Id.  ID, 

0   Za/x,oA|i?  hvyti,    a  »;/>tST£§o;  @a,fffaws,   Stoq  uv.        Platon. 

Charmid.  p.  157,  torn.  2.  ed*  H.  Stephau.  —  -p.  276^ 
ed.  Ficini. 

f  Za.p.ohfa  —  trot^ot,  $t  TO»$  Teret,i$  uvopa^tro  §to<;*  L<  7. 
c.  457.  See  alfop-466,  1106,  ed.  Amftel. 

?  Deor.  Cancil.  Oper.  torn;  2;  p,  713.  ed.  AmfteL 
See  below,  near  the  end  of  the  next  fe&ion,  where  the 
Thiacians  are  fpoken  o£, 

as 


in  barbarous  Nations.  33 

as  having  rifen  from  the  condition  of  a 
Have  to  divine  honours.  Diogenes  La- 
ertius  expreffly  refers  to  the  hiftory  of 
Herodotus  when  he  fays,  that  Pythago 
ras  had  a  flave  named  Zamolxis,  to  whom 
the  Getes  facrifice\  And  Jamblichus,  in 
his  life  of  Pythagoras,  affirms,  that  the 
Getes  regarded  Zamolxis  as  the  greateft 
of  the  gods*. 

I  do  not  know  that  thefe  teftimonies 
are  contradifted  by  a  fmgle  perfon,  whe 
ther  ancient  or  modern,  Mr.  Fell  alone 
excepted.  But,  notwithftanding  feveral 
unfavourable  appearances,  and  the  li 
berties  he  takes  on  other  occcafions*, 
he  may  be  able  to  clear  himfelf  from 
iall  fufpicioh  of  having  had  recourfe 
to  invention,  in  order  to  fupply  his 
want  of  teftimonies.  As  that  is  a 
matter  that  muft  be  left  to  himfelf,  I 


at; 

$Yi<rw  H^OTOJ.      Diogen.   Laert.   Vit.   Pythagor.  1.   8. 
fegm.  2. 


jv  §tuv  EJ-»  wag'  afro*?.     Jamblich.  c.  30. 
*  See  above,  p.  11-17. 

E>  lhall 


34  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

fhall  only  obferve,  that,  had  he  had  any 
knowledge  of  the  fentiments  of  Herodo 
tus,  and  the  other  Greek  writers,  con 
cerning  the  gods  of  the  Getes,  prudence, 
at  leafl,  would  have  reft  rained  him  from, 
afferting  a  fact,  that  was  contradicted  by 
all  antiquity,  and  even  by  that  very  hif- 
torian  to  whom  he  appealed  for  it's  fup- 
port.  Mr.  Fell,  after  fpeaking  of  the 
Getes,  adds, 

IV.  <c  The  fame  obje6ls  of  religious 
<c  worfhip  pafied  from'  the  ancient  Scy- 
"  thians  to  the  Goths"  \ 

With  refpeft  to  thefe  people,  our 
author  has  given  us  no  authority  but 
his  own;  the  weight  of  which  we 
need  not  now  examine.  Had  he  not 
been  as  entirely  unacquainted  with  the 
Goths  as  with  the  Getes,  he  would  have 
known  there  was 'as  little  reafon  to  rank 
the  former,  as  (I  have  fhewn  there  was) 
the  latter,  amongft  the  nations  which 
worfhipped  only  the  natural  gods.  A 
few  extracts  from  Olaus  Magnus"  (him- 

u  Fell,  p.  9. 

w  I  refer  to  his  Hifloria  de  Gentibus  feptentrionali- 
bus,  publifhed  at  Rome,   1555.  felf 


in  barbarous  Nations.  3  5 

felf  a  Goth,  and  archbifhop  of  Upfal) 
will  ferve  to  prove,  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  northern  countries  in  general, 
while  they  continued  Heathens,  wor- 
fhipped  dead  men. 

From  this  writer  we  learn,  that  many 
of  thefe  nations  burnt  their  kings  and 
princes,  after  their  death,  that  they 
might  become  gods,  or  be  ranked  a- 
mongft  the  gods x.  He  farther  informs 
us,  that  the  three  greater  gods  of  the 
Goths  were  Thor^  Friga,  and  OdhenY. 
The  laft  of  thefe,  Odhen,  was  certainly 
of  human  extraft ;  for  Olaus  fays  of 
him,  that,  while  living,  he  was  ac 
knowledged  as  a  god  by  all  Europe,  on 
account  of  his  fuperiority  in  the  art  of 
war  ;  which,  it  was  thought,  gave  rife 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Goths,  that  Mars, 
whom  antiquity  confidered  as  the  god  of 

x  Reges  ac  princlpes  fuos  fatis  exutos,  ut  vel  dii  fie- 
rent,  vel  inter  decs  eveherentur,  combufierunt.  Lib.  3, 
c.i,  p.  97. 

>'  Vide  c,  3,  de  tribus  diis  majoribus  Gothorum. 

D  2  war, 


36  tVorJhip  of  human  Spirits 

war,  was  born  amongft  them2.  This 
god  was  appeafed  by  the  Goths  with  the 
blood  of  their  captive  enemies1.  As  to 
<fbor,  the  moft  mighty  y  the  prefident  of  the 
air,  where  he  thunders*,  he  feems  to  an- 
fvver  to  the  Roman  Jupiter c;  and  was 

z  Inpageioo,  he  fays,  concerning  Odhen,  Quiavi- 
vus  iota  Europa  divinitatis  titulum,  quod  nulli  in  arte 
militari  cederet,  affecutus  fuiflet;  hinc  evenifle  creditur, 
ut  Gothi  —  Martenv  quern  deum  belli  putavit  anti- 
quitas,  apud  fe  dicerent  progenitum. 

a  Jornandes  (de  rebus  Goticis,  cap.  5.)  affirms,  that 
the  Goths  —  Martem  Temper  afperrima  placavere  cul- 
tura.  Nam  victims  ejus  mortes  fuere  captivorum.  — 
This  is  confirmed  by  other  writers. 

b  Grotius  (in  his  Proleg.  Hift.  Gott.  et  Vandal, 
p.  21.)  fays,  Veteres  German!  Deum  cceli  non  alio  no- 
mine  quam  Thorn  vocarunt,  quod  eft  tonans  nunc  etiam 
I)anis.  Michaelis  (on  the  Influence  of  opinions  on  lan 
guage,  p.  19.)  informs  us,  that,  in  fome  of  the  pro 
vinces  of  Germany,  the  peafants,  when  it  thunders, 
fay,  The  good  old  man  is  pajjing  along  the  air.  Did  they 
not  derive  this  language  from  their  pagan  anceftors, 
though  they  now  apply  it  to  God  ?  I  take  notice  of 
thefe  circumftances  in  this  place,  becaufe  the  Goths 
wcrihipped  nearly  the  fame  gods  as  the  Germans. 

c  Thor,  inquiunt,  pr£fidet  in  acre ;  qui  tonitrua,  et 
fulmina,  ventos,  imbrefque,  ferena,  et  fruges,  guber- 
nat.  —  Thor  cum  fceptro  Jovem  exprimere  videtur. 
M.  Adamus  Bremeniis  de  Sueonibus.V^/w4f  fa  tdc- 

Mat.  I  A.c.3S.p.  134..  confidered 


in  barbarous  Nations.  37 

confidered  as  having  once  been  a  mortal 
man  :  for  Olaus  fpeaks  of  fome  who 
were  thought  to  be  the  fons  of  Thor  or 
Odhen.  The  defcription  given  of  Frigga 
agrees  with  that  of  Venus  -,  but  what 
reafon  can  be  affigned,  why  a  woman 
might  not  as  well  be  confidered  as  the 
goddefs  of  love,  as  a  man  be  regarded  as 
the  god  of  war  ? 

With  refpeft  to  the  leffer  deities  of  the 
Goths  and  all  the  northern  provinces, 
Methotiny  Froe,  Rofthicphus  Finnonicus^ 
they  are  reprefented  by  Okus  as  men 
who  had  been  eminent  in  their  time,  but 
afterwards  became  gods,  or  companions 
of  the  godsd,  and  were  honoured  with 
religious  worfhip6.  It  is  needlefs  to  ob- 
ferve,  that  many  others  were  thought 
worthy  of  divine  honours.  But  I  mull 
not  omit  to  take  notice,  that  there  was 
a  very  magnificent  temple  of  the  northern 
gods  near  the  river  Sala,  where  Upfal 

d  Eofque   deos,  vel  deorum  complices,  autumantes. 
Qlaus,  c.  4.  p.  101. 

e  Id.  ubi  fupra,  ct  c.  7.  p.  106. 

D  3  now 


38  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

now  ftands,  famous  even  from  the  time 
of  Ninusf.  Thefe  extrafts  from  Olaus 
(which  are  in  a  great  meafure  confirmed 
by  the  learned  authors g  of  the  Ancient 
Univerfal  Hiftory)  ferve  to  fhew  what 
gods  were  really  worfhipped  by  the 
Goths,  as  well  as  to  deteft  the  falfehood 
of  the  account  given  of  them  by  Mr. 
Fell.  Wjjh  the  Goths  the  gentleman 
joins 

V .  The  barbarous  Germans h . 

If  the  barbarous  Germans  had,  as  our 
author's  language h  implies,  the  fame  ob-» 
jefts  of  religious  worfhip  with  the  an 
cient  Scythians  and  Goths,  the  former 

f  Olaus,  c.  6.  p.  104. 

«  "  The  religion  of  the  Goths  feems  to  have 
"  been  the  fame  with  that  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of 
"  Scandinavia  and  Saxony,"  —  "  whofe  chief  gods 
ft  were  the  fun,  the  moon,  the  celebrated  Woden,  his 
"  fon  Thor,  (who  prefides  over  the  air,)  his  wife 
"  Frigga  or  Fraea,  Tuifto,  Theutates,  Hefus,  Thara-t 
*'  mis,"  &c.  Ancient  Univ.  Hiih  v.  19.  p.  265,  177, 
8vo.  ed.  1748. 

h  "  The  fame  objects  of  religious  worfhip  pafTed  from 
"  the  ancient  Scythians  to  the  Goths  and  barbarous 
ff  Germans."  Fell,  p.  9, 

muft 


in  barbarous  Nations.  39 

muft  have  been  worfliippers  of  dead  men ; 
becaufe  we  have  fhewn  that  fuch  were 
both  the  latter.  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Germans  dei 
fied  their  heroes,  this  will  confirm  what 
has  been  advanced  -concerning  the  gods 
of  the  Goths  and  Scythians.  Indeed, 
if  it  can  be  proved,  concerning  any  one 
of  thefe  three  nations,  that  human  fpi- 
rits  were  worshipped  in  it,  the  fame 
muft  be  true  concerning  the  other  two, 
provided  they  had  all  the  fame  objefts 
of  religious  worfhip. 

I  allow,  that,  according  to  Caefar,  as 
he  is  commonly  understood,  the  Germans 
owned  no  other  gods  but  the  fun,  Vul 
can,  and  the  moon1.  But  Csefar,  though 
well  acquainted  with  the  Gauls,  whom 
he  fubdued  after  a  ten  years'  war,  had 
very  little  knowledge  of  the  Germans ; 
nor  has  he  mentioned  their  religion  but 

1  Deorum  numero  eos  folos  ducunt,  quos  cernunt,  et 
quorum  opibus  aperte  juvantur,  Solem,  et  Vulcanum, 
£t  Lunam  :  reliquosne  fama  quidem  acceperunt. 
de  Bell.  Gall.  1.  6,  c.  20. 

D  4 


40  Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

in  the  moft  tranfient  manner.  And  he 
might  imagine,  as  many  others  have 
done,  that  the  Germans  did  not  worfhip 
the  fpirits  of  deceafed  men,  becaufe  (as 
we  learn  from  Tacitus)  they  thought  it 
unbecoming  the  majefty  of  the  gods  to  be 
confined  within  temples,  or  reprefented 
under  human  forms k.  The  inference, 
however,  isnotjuft:  for,  if  we  believe, 
upon  the  authority  of  Tacitus,  that  the 
Germans  had  neither  temples,  nor  ima 
ges  in  human  form  ;  we  muft,  upon  the 
fame  authority,  believe,  that  they  won- 
fhipped  the  fpirits  of  deceafed  men ;  as 
will  be  foon  fhewn.  Similar  inftances 
will  occur  in  the  fequel. 

The  firft  accounts,  given  of  the  reli 
gion  of  foreign  countries,  are  often  im- 
perfeft  and  erroneous;  but  thefe  ac 
counts  are  generally  correfted  by  farther 
enquiries,  and  a  more  improved  ac 
quaintance  with  the  languages  and  cuf- 

k  Nee  cohibere  parietibus  deos,  neque  in  ullam  hu- 
mani  oris  fpeciem  affimulare,  ex  magnitiidine  cceleftium 
a?bitrantur.  Tacitus,  de  Mor.  German,  c.  9. 


in  barbarous  Nations.  41 

toms  of  the  people.  How  often  were 
we  told,  that  the  honours,  paid  by  the 
Chinefe  to  Confucius  and  their  ancef- 
tors,  were  of  a  civil ,  rather  than  of  a  reli 
gious,  nature  ?  Neverthelefs  it  appear 
ed,  after  the  ftri6left  examination  into 
the  matter,  that  the  worfhip  paid  to  the 
fouls  of  their  anceftors  is  idolatrous;  and 
that  the  ceremonies  ufed  in  honour  of  Con 
fucius  are  the  very  fame  with  thofe  per 
formed  in  the  worfhip  of  the  celeftial 
and  terreftrial  fpirits  of  the  Chinefe1, 

Thus  (I  apprehend)  it  is  in  the  cafe 
before  us  :  the  defe6Uvem  and  (perhaps) 
erroneous  view  of  the  German  gods,  ex- 

1  See  Moftieim's  Ecclefiaftical  Hift.  v.  2.  p.  298-300. 
qto.  and  his  Memoirs  of  the  ChrilUan  Church  in 
China. 

m  Caefar  has  omitted  Jupiter  f  who  neverthelefs  was 
worfliipped  by  the  Germans,  under  the  German-Celtic 
denomination  of  Thory  Thur,  or  Thunder.  See  the  Rev. 
and  learned  Mr.  Whitaker's  Hift.  of  Manchefter,  v.  2. 
p.  359.  The  name  was  originally  Thoran,  Thorn;  but 
the  «  was  omitted  in  the  pronunciation.  Id.  ib.  He 
was  the  Tharamis,  or  Taranis,  who  will  be  fpoken  of 
under  the  article,  Gauls.  He  was  certainly  a  Celtic 
deity. 

hibited 


42  Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

hibited  by  Csefar,  is  fupplied  or  corre<5U 
ed  by  the  fuller  information  of  Tacitus, 
who  had  thoroughly  ftudied  their  reli 
gion,  and  has  given  a  very  particular  ac 
count  of  the  objefts  of  their  worfhip  ; 
both  of  thofe  common  to  feveral  nations 
of  Germany,  and  thofe  peculiar  to  each 
of  them.  According  to  this  very  accu 
rate  writer,  the  Germans  worfhipped  the 
fouls  of  dead  men,  and  Hercules  in  par 
ticular,  whom,  when  they  went  to  bat 
tle,  they  extolled  in  their  fongs  above  all 
other  heroes n  ;  and  they  appeafed  him  and 
Mars  with  the  animals  ufually  allowed  for fa- 
crifice0.  From  the  manner  in  which 
Mars  is  joined  with  Hercules,  there  can 
be  no  ground  to  doubt,  but  that  the  for 
mer  was  of  no  higher  an  original  than 
the  latter.  It  is  juft  the  fame  thing  as 
if  the  hiftorian  had  faid,  though  both 
had  been  men,  both  were  raifed  to  the 

*  Fuiffe  apud  eos  et  Herculem  memorant,  primum- 
que  omnium  virorum  fortium  ituri  in  prselia  canunt. 
Tacit,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  2. 

0  Herculem  ac  Martem  conceffis  animalibus  placant. 
Id.  c.  9.  Concerning  Hercules,  fee  c.  $£. 

rank 


in  barbarous  Nations.  43 

rank  of  gods,  and  worfhipped  with  the 
fame  rites.  And  indeed  who  could  the 
Mars  of  the  Germans  be,  but  the  fame 
valiant  hero  and  god  of  war  who  was 
worfhipped  over  all  Europe*  ? 

Several  of  the  other  German  deities, 
mentioned  by  Tacitus,  were  alfo  of  hu 
man  extraft.  Such  were  (to  fay  nothing 
of  Mercury q)  Tuifto,  a  god  fprung  from 
the  earth,  (that  is,  the  firft  man',  as  they 
accounted  him,)  and  his  fon,  Mannus ; 
the  perfons  from  'whom  they  were  defcended> 

P  Above,  p.  36,  note  z. 

'  Mercury  will  be  fpoken  of  when  we  come  to  confi- 
der  the  cafe  of  the  Gauls, 

r  According  to  Tacitus,  (Mor.  Germ.  c.  2.)  the 
Germans  were  the  original  natives  of  their  country,  and 
neither  derived  from,  nor  mixed  with,  other  people. 
They  mull  therefore  have  confidered  Tuifto  as  the  firil 
man.  Ereftheus,  an  ancient  king  of  Athens,  to  whom 
a  temple  was  dedicated,  was  alfo  faid  to  be  born  of  the 
earth,  (Herodot.  1.  8.  €.55.)  and  many  others.  Al- 
moil  every  nation  pretended  to  be  of  equal  duration 
with  the  earth  itfelf.  See  Potter's  Antiq.  b.  I.  c.  i. 
Compare  Dr,  Borlafe's  Antiquities  of  Cornwall,  b.  i. 
SrJ, 

and 


44  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

and  the  founders  of  the  nation*.  To  thefe 
we  may  probably  add  Herthum^  that  is, 
mother-earth 3  or  the  goddefs  that  prefi- 
ded  over  it,  who  was  worfhipped  by  fe- 
veral  people  of  Germany.  She  is  defcri- 
bed  as  a  goddefs  who  vifits  countries,  and 
is  fometimes  drawn  about  in  a  chariot,  and 
afterwards  wafhed  and  purified,  together 
with  her  holy  vehicle,  in  a  fecret  lake'. 
As  to  Ifis,  Caftor  and  Pollux,  Velleda, 
and  many  more",  it  is  impoffible  to 
doubt  of  their  being  of  human  origin. 

Nor  is  there  anyjuft  reafon  toconclude, 
that  the  Germans  introduced  a  new  fpe- 
cies  of  worfhip  in  the  interval  of  time 
between  Casfar  and  Tacitus.  For  the 
latter  tells  us,  that  their  deifying  Villeda 
and  other  women,  in  whom  a  fpirit  of  di 
vination  was  thought  to  dwell,  was  a-r 

8  Celebrant  Tuiftonem  deum,  terra  editum,  et  filium 
Mannum,  originem  gentis,  conditorefque.  Tacit. 
Mor.  Germ.  c.  2.  — Communis  opinio  et  fama  eft,  ho 
mines  terra  prognatos,  &c.  Polyhiftor  &  Abydenus,  as 
cited  by  Schedius  de  Diis  Germ.  p.  278. 

*  Id.  c.  40. 

*  C.  8,  9,  43. 

greeable 


in  barbarous  Nations.  45 

greeable  to  the  ancient  ufage  of  the  Ger* 
mans"';  not  founded  upon  flattery,  nor 
upon  a  notion  that  they  could  make  dei 
ties  by  performing  certain  rites  of  confe^ 
cration,  (which,  as  he  infmuates,  was 
the  cafe  among  the  Romans,)  but  upon 
a  real  belief  that  fuch  women  parti 
cipated  a  divine  quality*. — The  account 
given  of  the  German  gods  by  Tacitus  is 
more  authentic  than  Caefar's,  and  has 
been  fo  deemed  by  learned  men y.  But 
after  all,  there  is  perhaps  no  contradic 
tion  between  thefe  illuflrious  writers. 
Caefar  was  too  well  acquainted  with  the 
genius  of  paganifm,  to  deny  that  the 
Germans  worfhipped  the  heroes  of  their 

w  Fetere  apud  Germanos  more,  quo  plerafque  fasmi- 
narum  fatidicas,  et  augefcente  fuperftitione  arbitrentur 
deas.  Tacit.  Hift.  1.  4.  c.  61.  —  See  what  the  fame 
author  fays  concerning  Velleda,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  8. 
In  the  fame  place  he  tells  us,  Olim  Auriniam  et  com- 
plures  alias  venerati  funt,  non  adulatione,  nee  tanquam 
facerent  deas. 

x  Ineffe  quinetiam  fan&um  aliquid  et  providum  pu* 
tant.  Id.  ib. 

y  See  Tacit.  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9.  ed.  Gronov.  torn.  2. 
p.  602. 

own 


46  Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

own  country.  Nor  does  his  language 
import  fuch  a  denial.  He  is  fpeaking 
only  of  the  gods  acknowledged  by  the 
Germans  in  general,  of  fuch  of  their 
gods  as  they  held  in  common  with  the 
Romans  and  other  nations.  For,  after 
faying  that  the  Germans  owned  no  other 
gods  but  the  fun,  Vulcan,  and  the 
moon,  he  adds,  of  the  reft  they  have  not 
fo  much  as  heard  >  that  is,  the  reft  of  the 
gods  generally  worfhipped  in  other  coun^ 
tries.  On  this  natural  fuppofition,  Gae- 
far  had  no  view  to  the  gods  peculiar  to 
the  Germans  in  general,  or  to  any  parti 
cular  tribes  of  that  people.  But  it  is  on 
thefe  that  Tacitus  has  enlarged.  If  we 
put  the  accounts  of  both  thefe  writers 
together,  the  Germans,  like  the  northern 
nations,  had  gods  both  natural  and 
mortal1.  Let  us  proceed  to  confider, 


2  See  what  is  faid  above,  p.  38,  note  s,  con 
cerning  the  northern  nations.  Had  Caefar  thought  that 
the  Germans  worfhipped  only  the  natural  gods,  he 
would  have  ufed  the  word/r* ,  inftead  of  Vulcan. 

VI. 


in  barbarous  Nations.  47 

VI.  The  cafe  of  the  Perjians,  to  which 
Dr.  Blackwella  appeals,  and  after  him 
Mr.  Fell b. 

The  account  given  of  the  religion  of  the 
Periians  by  Herodotus  is  as  follows: 
<c  They  do  not  erecl  either  ftatues,  or 
"  temples,  or  altars;  and  charge  with 
cc  extreme  folly  thofe  who  do.  What  I 
"  take  to  be  their  reafon  is,  that  they  do 
ec  not  believe,  like  the  Greeks,  that  the 
"  gods  are  of  the  race  ofmen*.  They  af- 
ce  cend  the  fummits  of  the  mountains 
cc  when  they  facrifice  to  Jupiter,  by 
"  which  name  they  call  the  whole  circum 
ference  of  heaven.  They  facrifice  alfo 
to  the  fun  and  moon,  and  to  the  earth, 
and  to  fire,  water,  and  winds  :  and  to 
thefe  alone  they  facrifice  from  the  be 
ginning.  But  they  have  learnt  from 
"  the  Aflyrians  and  Arabians  to  facrifice 

a  Mythol.  p.  272. 

*P.7. 

c  This  meaning  of  the  original  word,  ar^awopt/eaf, 
will  be  vindicated  in  the  next  chapter,  when  confidering 
the  gods  of  the  Greeks* 

"  alfo 


48  WorJIrip  of  human  Spirits 

"  alfo  to  Urania,  or  Venus,  who  by  the 
€C  Aflyriansis  called  Mylitta5  by  the  A- 
C£  rabians  Alitta,  and  by  the  Perfians 
"  Mitrad. 

In  juftice  to  the  great  fagacity  of  Mr. 
Fell,  I  muft  take  notice,  that  he  is  plea- 
fed  to  fay%  "  that  I  carefully  omit  the 
"  account  which  Herodotus  has  given 
ec  concerning  the  Perfian  objects  of  wor- 
"  fhip,  becaufe  that  is  a  flat  contradic- 
cc  tion  to  my  repeated  affertions."  The 
Perfians  being  a  barbarous*  nation  in  the 


d  Ayatytara   /AEV   xai  ><>!»?   xa*  $o;//ta$  UH  tv  vopu 
»}gt/itcr$£iiy   aXXa   xai    TOKTI    TTOIEUO-I   pugwv    VTHtytgio-i'    <aq 
e^toi   ^ojiEHiv,   OT»   »x  «^9^(nro^vidK   tvopiffccv  T«s  Ssa 
ot  EXX»jv£;,    £»va».      Ot   ^e   yo^ci^tfiji   An  ptvf  ETTJ  ra  yv/^AoraTflt 
TWV  8£tuv  ai'ajSa»vovT£?,  ^fo-»a?  igJliU',   TOV  xfxAov  -/ravra  Ttf  oy- 


*  T«TOKrt^A£v  0*9  ^yyoicr*  • 
TE 


»  ^E,   A^irla*     tle^<m  ^E,    Mirgay.      Herodot* 

1.  i.  c.  131. 

-p.  7. 

f  Herodotus  perpetually  ftiles  them  Barbarians  ;  and 
the  account  he  gives  of  them  fhews  that  they  deferved 
the  title,  for  a  better  reafon  than  their  not  being  Gre 
cians. 

age 


in  barbarous  Nations.  49 

age  of  Herodotus,  and  there  being  no 
peculiar  reference  to  their  gods  in  Scrip 
ture  *,  they  could  not  be  included  in  my 
propofition  ftated  aboveh;  efpecially  if  it 
be  true,  that  they  had  no  demons,  or 
fubaltern  deities,  of  any  kind;  which 
they  could  not  have,  if,  as  Mr.  Fell  con 
tends,  they  worfhipped  only  the  natural 
gods.  The  account  given  of  the  gods 
of  Perfia  by  Herodotus  has  not  even  the 
appearance  of  being  a  contradidion  to 
my  affertions  concerning  thofe  demons, 
who  were  the  more  immediate  objefts 
of  public  worfhip  in  other  countries  -, 
and  whom  I  affirmed  to  be  human  fpi- 
rits :  and  confequently  I  could  not  be 
under  any  fuch  temptation,  as  our  author 
fuppofes,  to  omit  that  account.  The  fa£t 
is,  that  I1  cited  as  much  of  Herodotus  as 
belonged  to  the  fubje6t  upon  which  I 

was  fpeaking  ;    and  even  that  very  part 

» 

£  The  do&rine  of  the   two  principles  alluded  to  by 
Ifaiah  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Perfians. 

>  P.  4. 

1  DifU-rt.  p.  186,    IS-. 

E  of 


50  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

of  him  which  aflerts,  that  the  Perfiam 
did  not  believe  that  the  gods  are  of  the  race 
of  men  ;  which  is  the  only  circumftance 
on  which  the  pretence  of  a  contradic 
tion  could  be  founded.  Without  taking 
at  prefent  any  farther  notice  of  an  au 
thor,  who  always  lofes  fight  of  the  pro 
per  point  in  difpute,  and  who  does  not 
feem  to  have  attended  to  the  wide  diffe 
rence  there  is  between  traducing  an  op 
ponent  and  confuting  him,  I  proceed  to 
examine  the  Perfian  objefts  of  worfhip, 
and  the  account  given  of  them  by  Hero 
dotus  and  other  writers. 

There  is  no  fubje6t  on  which  learned 
men  are  more  divided  in  their  opinion 
than  this  ;  and  therefore  I  will  confider 
it  at  large.  Let  us  diftinftly  inquire, 
whether  the  ancient  Perfians  were  idola 
ters  -y  and,  if  they  were,  whether  they 
worfhipped  any  but  the  natural  gods. 

Firft  let  us  inquire  whether  the  an 
cient  Perfians  were  idolaters.  If  we  can 
rely  on  the  authorities  produced  by  Dr. 
Hyde,  in  his  very  learned  treatife  on  the 

religion 


in  barbarous  Nations.  5 1 

religion  of  the  ancient  Perfians,  it  was 
at  firft  derived  from  Abraham,  after 
wards  reformed  by  Zoroafter,  and  con- 
fifted  in  the  fole  worfhip  of  the  one  true 
God.  To  this  reformation  Sir  Ifaac 
Newton k  refers,  when  he  fays,  "  The 
cc  various  religions  of  the  feveral  na* 
cc  tions  of  Perfia,  which  confifted  in 
"  the  worfhip  of  their  ancient  kings, 
"  were  abolifhed,  and  the  worfhip  of  one 
<c  God,  at  altars,  without  temples,  fet 
<c  up  in  all  Perfia,  in  the  reign  of  Da- 
ce  rius  the  fon  of  Hyftafpes,  by  the  in- 
"  fluence  of  Hyftafpes  and  Zoroafter  •> 
<c  but  in  a  fhort  time  afterwards  the 
"  Perfians  worfhipped  the  fun,  and  the 
"  fire,  and  dead  men,  and  images,  as 
<c  the  Egyptians,  Phenicians,  and  Chal- 
<c  deans,  had  done  before.''  Now,  ac 
cording  to  this  hypothecs,  the  Perfians  are 
to  be  confidered  as  the  worfhippers  of  hu 
man  fpirits  in  all  the  early  ages  of  the 
world,  excepting  the  interval  between 

k  Short  Chronicle,  p.  40.     Chronol.  p.  352. 

E  2  the 


52  War/hip  of  human  Spirits 

the  reformation  of  their  religion  in  the 
reign  of  Darius,  and  their  fubfequent 
relapfe  into  idolatry ;  a  period  too  fhort 
to  be  taken  into  account. 

But  it  has  long  been  fufpefled,  by 
writers  of  the  firft  repuation1,  that  the 
Arabian  and  Perfian  authors,  from 
whom  Dr.  Hyde  draws  his  proofs,  are 
too  modern  to  difcover  to  us  the  religion 
of  the  old  Perfians.  And  a  gentleman 
well  verfed  in  oriental  learning™  has 
more  lately  allured  the  world,  "  that 
<c  the  genuine  works  of  Zoroafter  are 
cc  loft;  that  the  pretended  fragments 
<c  of  them,  which  Dr.  Hyde  has  given 
cc  us  under  the  title  of  Sadder,  are  the 
"  rhymes  of  a  modern  prieft  who  lived 
cc  about  three  centuries  ago";  that  no 
<c  books  now  exift  in  the  ancient  dialefl 
cc  ofPerfia0;  that  the  Arabian  conquefts 
Cf  proved  a  radical  fubverfion  of  the  Per- 

1  Bafnage's  Hift.  of  the  Jews,  b.  iv.  ch.  12.   §.13. 
m  Richardfon,  in  his  DifTertation  on  the  languages, 
literature,  and  manners,  of  the  eailern  nations,  2d  ed. 
n  P.  12,  25,  26. 
0  P.  13- 

"  Can 


in  barbarous  Nations.  53 

cc  fian  religion p  as  well  as  government ; 
"  and  that  the  principal  hiftorians  of  Per- 
cc  fia,  now  known  in  Europe,  are  all  fub- 
cc  fequent  to  the  Mohammedan  aera"q.  I 
muft  add,  that  a  gentleman,  whofe  final- 
left  praife  it  is  to  be  the  beft  linguift  of  the 
age,  and  whofe  ftudies  were  for  fome 
years  direfted  to  the  improvement  of  eaft- 
ern  literature",  entertains  the  fame  opi 
nion  of  the  authorities  upon  which  Dr. 
Hyde  grounds  his  fyftem  as  the  ingenious 
writer  laft  referred  to. 

As  Dr.  Hyde's  witnefTes  are  very  ex 
ceptionable,  fo  the  fa<5ts  they  atteft  are 
highly  improbable.  The  learned  Dr. 

P    P.   21,    22. 
*    P.  42. 

r  I  need  not  fay,  that  I  here  refer  to  W.  Jones,  Efq. 
This  gentleman  did  me  the  honour  to  fend  me  a  letter, 
which  he  publifhed  in  the  French  language,  in  the  year 
1771,  and  which  is  now  out  of  print ;  wherein  he  ihews 
that  all  the  works  afcribed  to  Zoroafler  are  fpurious, 
As  to  the  Sadder,  he  fays,  p.  28,  Tous  les  etudians  de 
la  literature  orientale  favaient  deja  que  les  miferables 
poe'mes  appelles  Saddar  et  Ardiviraf  Nama  etaient  ecrits 
en  langue  Perfanne  modcrne,  et  feulement  en  caradt.eres 
anciens. 

E  i  Prideaux, 


54  Worfbip  of  human  Spirits 

Prideaux',  though  he  follows  our  au 
thor  in  feveral  particulars,  yet,  when 
fpeaking  of  Zoroafter's  prophecies  of 
Chrift,  fays,  "  All  this  feems  to  be  ta- 
€C  ken  out  of  the  legendary  writings  of  the 
<c  eaftern  Chriftians."  Many  other 
things  related  by  Dr.  Hyde  feem  to  be 
extrafted  from  fome  writings  equally  le 
gendary.  Is  it  probable,  that  Abraham 
was  fent  by  God  to  the  Perfians,  to  deliver 
to  them  a  fyftem  of  religion*  ?  Is  it  credi 
ble,  that  this  religion,  after  it  was  cor 
rupted,  was  reflored  by  Zoroafter,  and 
preferved  in  it's  purity,  for  a  fucceffion  of 
ages,  by  a  barbarous  people  ;  though  a 
long  feries  of  ftupendous  miracles  could 
Icarce  prevent  the  fundamental  principle 
of  it  from  being  loft  among  the  defcen- 
dents  of  the  pious  patriarch  ? 

There  is  a  farther  obje£lion  againft 
Dr.  Hyde's  account  of  the  Perfian  reli 
gion,  viz.  it's  being  contradicted  by  the 
teftimony  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  wri- 

3  Connexion,  v.  i.  p.  ^29,  3-50,   8vo. 
'  Hyde,  ch.  2.  p.  28. 

ters ; 


in  barbarous  Nations.  55 

ters  5  many  of  whom  vifited  Perfia  at  the 
very  time  when  that  religion  flourifhed, 
and  who  had  certainly  the  beft  opportu 
nities  of  information.  This  was  the 
cafe  as  to  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  in 
particular.  They  were  withal  inquifi- 
tive  and  candid,  and  under  no  tempta 
tion  to  give  a  falfe  account  of  the  Perfian 
objefts  of  worfhip.  Befides,  as  after  the 
reign  of  Xerxes  there  was  a  greater  in- 
tercourfe  between  the  Greeks  and  Per- 
lians  than  there  had  been  before11,  they 
could  not  have  delivered  to  thefr  coun 
trymen  a  falfe  account  of  the  Perfian 
gods  without  being  detefted  and  expo- 
fed.  I  muft  add,  that  their  account 
of  them  is  much  more  probable  in  it's 
own  nature,  I  mean  much  more  agreea 
ble  to  what  we  know  with  certainty  con 
cerning  the  other  heathen  nations,  and 
thofe  in  particular  with  which  the  Per- 
fians  were  connected,  than  that  given  by 
Dr.  Hyde  upon  the  authority  of  late 
writers. 

a  Plutarch.  Vit.  ThcmiftocH',  p.  126. 

E  4  For 


56  Worflnp  of  human  Spirits 

For  the  feveral  foregoing  reafons,  I 
cannot  but  give  the  preference  on  this 
occafion  to  the  teftimony  of  the  former,  ef- 
pecially  as  it  is  in  a  great  degree  confirmed 
by  the  latter.  The  Greek  and  Roman  wri 
ters  tell  us,  that  the  Perfians  worfhipped 
the  funw.  And  is  not  this  in  a  great  mea- 
fure  admitted  by  thofe  very  authorities 
which  are  cited  by  Dr.  Hyde  to  prove  the 
contrary  ?  It  is  faidw,  indeed,  that  the  wor- 
fhip  paid  to  the  fun  in  Perfia  was  only  of 
a  civil,  not  of  a  religious,  nature.  But  did 
the  common  people  understand  theprecife 
difference  between  thefe  two  kinds  of  wor- 
fhip  ?  Or  would  they  honour  with  prof- 
trations,  falutations,  and  incenfex,  what 
in  their  conception  had  no  power  to  in- 
terpofe  for  their  benefit  ?  The  diftinc- 
tion  between  civil  and  religious  worfhip 
is  probably  made  in  this  cafe,  as  we 
know  it  is  in  others7,  merely  to  avoid 

w  See  Hyde,  c.  4. 

x  And  with  libations  and  facrifices,  according  to  the 
Greeks.  Hyde,  p.  120.  ed.  1700. 

Y  By  the  Indians,  (as  will  be  fncwn  near  the  end  of 
the  2d  fcclion,)  and  hy  the  Chiaefe, 

the 


in  barbarous  Nations.  57 

the  odium  of  idolatry.      The   remains 
of  the  ancient  Perfians,  in  different  parts 
of  the  eaft,  are  under  peculiar  tempta 
tions  to  reprefent  their  worfhip  as  confif- 
tent  with  the  divine  unity;  becaufe  they 
live  amongft  the  Mohammedans,   who, 
though  indulgent  to  all  other  religions, 
deteft  and  perfecute  idolaters    and    the 
worfhippers  of  fire2.     I  fee  no  ground  to 
doubt,  but  that  the  ancient  Perfians  (as 
well  as  others)  did  worfhip  this  element, 
and  the  fun  as  its  chief  receptacle  ;  which 
feems  to  be  intimated  in  the  very  plea 
fome  have  made  for  them,  viz.  that  they 
worfhip  the   fun  only  as  the  habitation 
of  the  Deity.     This,  however,  is  no  bet 
ter  an  excufe  than  what  the  ancient  philo- 
fophers  made  for  that  groffeft  fpecies  of  i- 
dolatry,  the  paying  religious  honours  to 
brute   animals.     It  is  evident   that,    in 

2  Les  Mahometans,  tolerans  pour  toutes  les  autres 
religions,  font  intolerans  pour  les  idolatres  et  les  adora- 
teurs  du  feu  ;  et,  fi  quelques  families  de  ces  malheureux 
trouverent  le  moien  de  fe  retirer  dans  PInde,  ils  ne 
purent  conferver  que  quelques  traditions  imparfaitcs  au 
iujet  de  leurs  ancienne's  loix.  Jones's  Letter,  p.  46. 

both 


58  Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

both  cafes  alike,  the  worfhip  would  ter 
minate  in  its  more  immediate  objects. 

Hence  many  Chriftians  chofe  to  fuffer 
the  moft  extreme  punifhment  rather  than 
join  with  the  Perfians  in  their  adoration 
of  the  fun3.  And  if  others,  after  ha 
ving  embraced  the  Gofpel,  continued  to 
praftife  fome  of  thofe  rites,  in  honour 
of  this  celeftial  luminary  b,  to  which  they 
had  been  long  accuftomed,  this  might 
proceed  from  their  defire  of  avoiding 
perfecution,  or  from  the  ftrength  and 
inveteracy  of  their  former  prejudices. 
Like  caufes  produced  fimilar  effefts  up 
on  the  firfl  Chriftian  converts  ;  fome 
of  whom  were  not  eafily  got  off  from 
their  fuperftitious  reverence  for  i- 
dolsc;  and  others  obferved  the  law 
of  Mofes,  either  to  avoid  the  difpleafure 
of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  or  from  a  per- 


a  Saporis  jufTu  Simeon  cum  multis  aliis,  quod  folem 
adorare  recufaflent,  ultimo  fupplicio  adfedi.  Sozom. 
II.  8,  9,  12.  Hyde,  p.  no. 

b  See  Hyde,  p.  109. 

c  i  Cor.  viii.     . 


in  barbarous  Nations.  59 

fuafion  of  it's  obligation.  Here,  in  Bri 
tain,  a  learned  antiquary d  informs  us, 
that,  after  Chriftianity  took  place,  many 
continued  to  worfhip  confecrated  ftones, 
their  former  idols.  Nay,  the  fondnefs 
for  human  viftims  remained  for  a  confi- 
derable  time  amongfl  fome  who  had  em 
braced  the  faith  of  Chrift6. 

Having  affigned  the  reafons  which  in 
duce  me  to  think  that  the  ancient  Per- 
fians  were  idolaters,  I  proceed  to  exa 
mine,  in  the  fecond  place,  whether  they 
worshipped  only  the  natural  gods.  He 
rodotus,  in  the  foregoing  extra£lf  from 
him,  has  been  thought  to  affirm  that 
they  had  no  other  gods  but  thefe.  It 
may,  however,  be  worth  while  to  in 
quire,  whether,  notwithftanding  what 
is  advanced  by  this  hiftorian,  the  Per- 
fians  might  not  worfhip  human  fpirits  al- 

tl  Borlafe,  Ant.  of  Cornwall,  p.  162. 

*  Francos,  etii  Chriftum  jam  colcrent,  humanis  ta- 
men  ad  fuum  sevum  hofliis  ufos.  Procopius,  1.  2.  de 
Bell.  Goth.  Lipili  not.  in  Tacit,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9. 
Borlafe,  p.  154. 

fP.tf. 

foj 


60  Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

fo ;  and  whether  there  be  any  evidence 
that  they  did  worfhip  them.  I  will  en 
deavour  to  fhew, 

I.  That  the  Perfians  might  worfhip 
human  fpirits,  notwithftanding  what  is 
contained  in  the  foregoing  extraft  from 
Herodotus.  It  was  not  the  delign  of  this 
hiftorian  to  give  a  full  account  of  the  re 
ligion  of  the  Perfians,  but  principally 
to  point  out  fome  remarkable  particu 
lars  in  which  it  differed  from  that  of 
Greece.  When  he  fpeaks  of  their  rites 
ofwor/hip*,  he  fcarce  touches  on  any  but 
the  moft  fingular  of  them  :  and  fo  far  is 
he  from  enumerating  all  their  gods,  that 
he  has  made  no  mention  of  Arimanius, 
who  was  certainly  worfhipped  by  Xer 
xes  h.  The  Perfians  therefore  might 
have  both  many  rites,  and  many  objects, 
of  worfhip,  which  it  did  not  fall  within 
the  defign  of  Herodotus  to  mention  in 
the  comparative  view  which  he  has  here 
given  of  their  religion. 

s  L.  i.  c.  132. 

h  Plutarch.  Vit.  Themifloc.  p.  126.  A. 

He 


in  barbarous  Nations.  61 

He  begins  with  taking  notice  of  a  very 
ftriking  difference  between  the  religions 
of  the  Perfians  and  the  Greeks  5  the  for 
mer,  contrary  to  the  principles  and 
praftice  of  the  latter,  having  no  ftatues, 
temples,  or  altars,  and  condemning 
thofe  who  had. 

In  order  to  account  for  this  difference, 
he  fays,  he  apprehended  the  reafon  of  it  to 
be,  that  the  Perfians  did  not  believe,  as 
the  Greeks  did,  that  the  gods  were  of 
human  defcent.  This  he  mentions  only 
as  his  own  private  opinion,  and  with 
fome  degree  of  hefitation  j  knowing,  it 
may  be  prefumed,  that  the  Germans11 
and  others  had  neither  temples  nor  fta- 
tues,  though  they  worihipped  human 
fpirits.  But  it  is  more  to  our  prefent 
purpofe  to  obferve,  that  the  gods  of 
Greece,  here  fpoken  of,  are  not  the  he 
roes  and  demons *  of  that  country,  but 

h  Above,  p.  40. 

*  See  above,  p.  5,  note  k.  Heroes  and  demons  are 
fometimes  diftinguifhed  from,  gods,  even  when  the  latter, 
no  lefj  than  the  former,  were  fuppofed  to  have  been 
men, 

men 


62          Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

men  to  whom  the  title  of  gods  belonged 
eminently  and  by  way  of  diftinftion  ;  to 
whom  temples,  as  well  as  ftatues  and 
altars,  were  erefted,  and  who  were  the 
objefts  of  the  higheft  worfhip.  The 
gods  of  Perfia,  therefore,  here  con- 
trailed  with  them,  muft  be  the  princi 
pal  gods  of  that  country.  Now,  it  was 
a  diftinftion  that  well  deferved  to  be 
mentioned,  that  the  chief  objefts  of  wor 
fhip  in  one  country  were  not  believed,  as 
they  were  in  the  other,  to  be  of  the  hu 
man  race :  but  it  will  not  follow  from 
hence,  that  the  Perfians  paid  no  religious 
honours  to  heroes,  to  whom  there  is  no 
reference  in  this  place. 

The  hiftorian  proceeds  to  inform  us, 
that  they  facrificed  to  Jupiter  upon  the 
top  of  mountains ;  and  then  enumerates 
their  other  natural  gods.  The  Greeks 
acknowledged  the  fame  natural  gods  as 
the  Perfians  did ;  that  is,  the  elements 
and  heavenly  bodies.  But,  to  thefe  a- 
lone,  the  hiftorian  adds,  they  (the  Per 
fians)  facrifice  fro?n  the  beginning.  In 

this 


in  barbarous  Nations.  63 

this  manner  the  original  words  are  com 
monly  underftood  5  and,  if  this  be  their 
true  fenfe,  they  point  out  a  farther  dif- 
tinftion  between  the  religion  of  Greece 
and  Perfia.     Many  of  the  heathen  phi- 
lofophers   taught,  that  the  deified  parts 
and  powers  of  nature  were  reprefented 
under  the  form  of  men  and  womenk ;  or 
that  the  latter  were  fymbols  of  the  for 
mer.  According  to  this  account,  the  great 
gods  of  Greece,  to  whom  Herodotus  here 
refers,  were  both  human  perfonages  and 
fymbolical  reprefentations  of  the  natural 
gods.      It  was    under  the  former  view 
however  that  they  were  confidered  by  the 
people,  and  were  the  objefts  of  the  pub 
lic  facrificesk.     The  victims  were  offered 
immediately,  not  to  heaven  or  the  aether, 
for   example,    but    to    Jupiter;     who, 
though  often  put  for  heaven  or  the  ae 
ther,  was  a  diftinft  deity  from  it1.     But, 
in  Perfia,  the  public  facrifices,  according 
to   our  hiftorian  *,    were  offered  imme- 

k  See  below,  p.4i2etfeq.  diately 

1  Afpice  hoc    fublime  candens,  quern  invocant  om- 

nes  Jovem.     Quail  vero  quifquam   noftrum  iftum,  po- 

tius  quam  Capitolmiim,  Jovem  appellet.  Id.  1.  3.  c.  4. 

f  Though  I  argue  all  along  upon   the  fuppofition  of 

the-truth  of  his  account  of  the  great  gods  of  Perfia ; 

yet 


64  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
diately  to  Jupiter,  under  the  fingle  idea 
of  his  being  the  whole  circumference  of 
•heaven.  Now,  though  the  Perfians  fa- 
crificed  to  the  natural  gods  alone  ;  that 
is,  under  their  own  proper  charafters, 
or  exclufively  of  all  thofe  human  fym- 
bols  which  intercepted  the  public  devo 
tion  of  Greece ;  yet,  befides  thefe  natu 
ral  gods,  they  might  alfo  worfhip  human 
fpirits  5  juft  as  the  Greeks  had  demons 
and  heroes,  befides  thofe  great  gods 
which  were  fuppofed  by  fome  to  be  fym- 
bols  of  the  natural.  There  were  many  Ju- 
piters ;  and  the  Perfians,  befides  him  whom 
they  called  the  circumference  of  heaven,  might 
have,  one  or  more,  others  whom  they 
worfhipped.  Suppofing  this  to  be  the 
cafe,  the  hiftorian  would  not  have  ta 
ken  notice  of  it  here,  becaufe  it  was  a 
circumftance  that  was  not  peculiar  to 

yet  it  could  fcarce  be  built  upon  any  certain  informa 
tion  from  the  magi,  who  were  far  from  being  lefs  felici 
tous  than  other  pagan  priefts  to  conceal  the  nature  and 
origin  of  the  great  gods.  It  might  be  no  more  than  an 
inference  unjuftly  drawn  from  the  Perfians  not  wormip- 
ping  them  with  ftatues  and  temples.  Compare  the  cafe 
of  the  Germans,  (above,  p.  40.)  who,  like  the  Per 
fians,  were  a  Celtic  nation.  Probably  the  religion  of 
both  was  the  fame. 

the 


in  barbarous  Nations.  65 

the  Perfians,  but  common  both  to  them 
and  the  Greeks. 

But  it  deferves.to  be  confidered,  whe 
ther  the  common  tranflation  of  the  laft- 
cited  paflage  from  Herodotus  does  truly 
exprefs  the  fenfe  of  the  original,  which 
may  very  well  be  rendered,  cc  To  thefe 
<c  principally™ 'they  facrifice  from  the  be- 
"  ginning."  Now,  they  might  cer 
tainly  have  other  gods  befides  thofe  to 
whom  they  principally  facrificed.  Some 
think  that  Herodotus  only  meant  to  fay, 
that  "  the  Perfians  originally  facrificed 

m  TuTGitri  ply  h  /Aavoto-t.  The  word  ^oyo?  is  often  ufed 
as  equivalent  to  chief  or  principal.  Examples  may  be 
found  in  Horapollinis  Hieroglyph.  1.  i.  c.  12.  and 
t)e  Pauw's  notes,  p.  295.  Juftin  fays,  1.  i.  c.  10.  So- 
lem  Perfas  unum  deum  efle  credunt.  But  Freinmemius 
(in  his  note  on  Quintus  Curtius,  1.  iii.  c.  3.  p.  75* 
torn.  I.  ed.  Snakenburg)  conjectures,  that,  by  ununt 
deum,  we  are  not  to  underftand  folum  atque  unicum,  fed 
potius  unum  ex  diis.  According  to  Hefychius,  Mithras, 
or,  as  he  explains  it,  the  fun,  was  o  n^uros  $EO$,  the  fu- 
preme  god  of  the  Perfians.  Herodotus  is  certainly  the 
beft  expofitor  of  himfelf:  now,  he  feems  to  ufe^sro?  for 
chief  or  principal,  1.  v.  c.  7.  which  will  be  cited  when 
tve  come  to  fpeak  of  the  Thracians. 

F  "  to 


66          Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

"  to  thefe  gods  alone."  According  to 
every  fair  conftruclion  of  Herodotus, 
the  Perfians  might  worfhip  human  fpi- 
rits. 

II.  I  proceed  to  (hew,  that  they  did 
worfhip  them.  And,  if  Herodotus  him- 
felf  has  furnifhed  evidence  of  this  point, 
it  will  overturn  the  common  explication 
of  the  foregoing  extraft  from  him. 

i.  I  fhall  begin  with  obferving,  that 
the  Perfians  deified  their  kings  in  their 
mortal  ftate  upon  earth.  We  are  told, 
by  Herodotus,  that  they  adored"  their 
king,  and  attempted  to  compel  fome 
Grecians  to  do  the  fame0.  They  put 
their  kings  upon  the  fame  level  with 
their  gods.  Artabanus,  the  Perfian, 
thus  addrefTes  Themiftocles  :  We  have 
many  excellent  laws,  but  none  compara 
ble  to  that  which  requires  us  to  worjhip 
the  king  as  the  image  cf  the  God  who  pre» 
ferves  all  things*.  And  Cleo  commends 

»  L.  3.  c.  86. 
0  L.  7.  c.  136. 

p  H^OG-KWHV    sixovoc.   Sea,   TS  roe.    irwrce,  c-u^onog.      Plllt* 
Vk.  Themift.  p.  125.     See  the  next  note. 

the 


in  barbarous  Nations,  67 

the  cuftom  of  thePerfians  in  deifying  their 
kings,  as  being  both  pious  and  prudent1. 
To  their  images r  adoration  was  demanded, 
and  alfo  to  their  favourites  ;  for  Morde- 
cai  afligns  this  reafon  for  refufing  to  pay 
the  fame  honours  to  Haman  which  o- 
thers  did,  T*hat  he  would  not  worjhip  any 
but  God\  The  cuftom  of  deifying  kings 
was  of  great  antiquity,  and  obtained  in 
^Ethiopia ',  Italy0,  and  many  other 
countries,  as  well  as  in  Perfia. 

Now,  if  the  Perfians  paid  religious 
honours  to  their  kings  in  their  ftate 
of  mortality  upon  earth,  would  they 
not  continue  to  pay  thofe  honours  to 

*  Perfas  quidem  non  pie  folum,  fed  etiam  prudenter, 
feges  fuos  inter  deos  colere.  Cleo,  ap.  Q^  Curt.  1.  8. 
c.  5*  p.  595.  ed.  Snak.  Briflbnius,  here  cited,  fays : 
Quin  in  hanc  ufque  diem  Perfarum  rex  pro  deo  colitur 
a  fuis,  appellaturque  dominus,  qui  ccelum  ac  fulciat 
fujtineatque.  Which  illuftrates  the  language  of  Artaba- 
nus,  in  note  P. 

r  See  Philoftrat.  Vit.  Apollon.  Tyan.  1.  I.  c.  27, 
p.  35.  ed.  Olear. 

8  Apocrypha,  Either  xiii.   14* 

4  Strabo,  1.  17.  p.  1177,   A- 

u  At  Rome,  Horat.  1.2.  ep.  I.  v.  25. 

F  2  them. 


68          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

them  after  their  fuppofed  advancement 
to  celeftial  power  and  dignity  ?  In  other 
countries  it  was  cuftomary  for  thofe,  who 
deified  their  kings  while  living,  to  wor- 
fhip  them  after  their  death.  Why  fhould 
it  be  thought  that  Perfia,  fo  remarkably 
diftinguifhed  by  a  veneration  for  her 
monaichs,  was  an  exception  to  this  ge 
neral  rule  ? 

2.  There  are  direct  proofs  of  the  Per- 
fians  having  mortal  gods.  Herodotus, 
immediately  after  he  had  enumerated 
their  natural  divinities,  adds,  But  they  have 
learnt  from  the  Afjyriam  and  Arabians  to 
facrifice  alfo  to  Urania^  or  Venus.  By  this 
goddefs  we  are  not  to  underftand  the 
moon,  as  fome  have  fuppofedw,  becaufe 
diflincl  mention  had  been  before  made 
of  that  planet.  Strabox  like  wife  diftin- 
guiihes  the  goddefs  Venus  from  the 
moon.  Nor  did  Herodotus  by  Urania 
mean  the  planet  Venus ;  becaufe  the  for 
mer  is  diftinguifhed  from  the  natural 

w  Letters  concerning  Mythol.  p.  273. 
*   Ttuwo-t  laA^ijy  KM  A£|<&lV.     P.   1064. 

gods 


in  barbarous  Nations.  69 

gods  of  the  Perfians,  and  her  worfhip  is 
mentioned  as  an  exception  to  their  gene 
ral  practice.  Herodotus  probably  refers 
to  the  prefident  of  the  planet  Venus,  or 
of  the  moon.  In  this  view,  the  worfhip 
of  Venus,  as  one  of  their  chief  deities, 
was  a  juft  exception  to  their  rule  of  fa- 
crificing  to  the  celeftial  luminaries  apart, 
or  by  themfelves  ;  for*  in  this  inftance 
they  paid  diftinft  worfhip  to  the  prefi 
dent  of  a  celeftial  luminary.  That  the 
female  deity,  of  whom  we  are  fpeaking, 
was  worfhipped  by  the  vulgar  under  a 
human  charafler,  I  fee  no  ground .  to 
doubt7.  Moft  probably  fhe  was  the  Sy- 
F  3  rian 

J  There  were  four  Venufes,  according  to  Cicero, 
(Nat.  Deor.  1.3.  c.  23.)  and  the  philofophers  allego 
rized  their  hiflory  ;  (fee  Apuleius,  Metamorphof.  1.  xi. 
p.  357,  358*)  as  they  did  that  of  other  heathen  deities. 
But  the  language  of  Cotta,  when  expofmg  thofe  alle, 
gorical  explications,  plainly  fuppofes,  that  the  public 
opinion  concerning  the  deities,  whofe  hiltory  was  con 
verted  into  allegory,  was,  that  they  were  deified  mor 
tals.  —  Dicamus  igitur,  Balbe,  oportet  contra  illos 
etiam,  qui  hos  deos,  ex  hominum  genere  in  cesium  tr.inf- 
latos,  non  re,  fed  opinione,  efle  dicunt,  quos  auguile 

omnes 


70         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

nan  Aftarte2,  to  whom  the  planet  Ve 
nus  was  confecrated,  and  of  whom  there 
will  be  occafion  to  fpeak  hereafter*.  In 
Armenia,  Venus  was  worfhipped  under 
the  name  of  Anaitis*,  and  reprefented  by 
an  image  of  human  formc  \  which  fhews 
what  ideas  were  formed  of  her  in  the 
eaft.  Here,  then,  is  an  inftance  of  the 

omnes  fanfleque  veneramur.  Ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor. 
1.  3.  c.  21.  Amongft  other  deities,  the  four  Venufes 
are  fpecified,  €.23.  And  he  concludes  with  obferving, 
that  the  notions  entertained  of  thefe  divinities  arofe 
from  old  ftories  fpread  in  Greece,  which,  for  the  credit 
of  religion,  ought  to  be  difcouraged,  but  which  the 
Stoics  rather  confirmed,  than  refuted,  by  their  manner 
of  explaining  them.  —  Atque  hxc  quidem  ejufmodi  ex 
vetere  Grascias  fama  collegia  funt :  quibus  intelli- 
gis  refiflendum  efle,  ne  perturbentur  religiones. 
Veftri  autem  non  modo  haec  non  refellunt,  verum  etiam 
confirmant,  interpretando  quorfum  quidque  pertineat. 
Ibid, 

2  Quarta,  (fell.  Venus,)  Syriaj  Tyroque  concepta, 
quae  Aftarte  vocatur*  Id.  ib. 

a  Under  the  article,  Phoenicians,  in  the  2d  ch. 

b  Strabo  introduces  the  mention  of  this  fact,  by  fay 
ing,  Asrayra  fxev  ovt>  to,  run  lligcruy  i<t£(x.  KOH  Mvfrot  x.c»  A^- 
(A.SVKH  vtripwaet'  L.  XI.  p.  805, 

c  Clemens  Alexandr.  Cohort,  ad  Gentes,  p.  57,  ed, 
Potteri?  with  the  notes  of  the  learned  editor. 

worfhip 


in  barbarous  Nations.  j  \ 

worfhip  of  a  human  perfonage  in  Perfia, 
who  feems  to  have  been  raifed  to  the 
fame  rank  with  the  natural  gods. 

Amanus  and  Anandratus  were  de 
mons  of  Perfia d,  of  human  origin e,  who 
were  worshipped  not  only  in  their  own 
country,  but  alfo  in  Cappadocia,  where 
there  were  many  temples  of  the  Per- 
fian  gods  *.  We  are  tolcl  by  Strabo, 
in  moft  exprefs  terms,  that  the  Per- 
fians  celebrated  the  exploits  of  their  gods  and 
illuftrious  men*.  Thefe  teftimonies  are 
confirmed  by,  and  ferve  to  confirm,  the 
defcription  which  Quintus  Curtius  has 
given  of  the  chariot  of  Darius.  It  was 

To    Tr$  AVCIITIO&',    KCC.I  TO  TUV  trv^uuuv  QeteVj    icgov  to£y- 
ffctvTQ,   Ayt-oiva   xa*    Avav^ara,     Tltgcrwuv   (Sca^ovwy.      Strabo, 

1.  xi.  p.  779.     See  alfo  1.  xv.  p.  1065,  1066. 

e  Alexander  ab  Alexandro,  torn.  2.  p.  446.  after 
fpeaking  of  Amanus  and  Anandratus,  and  other  hea 
then  gods,  adds,  —  Qui  omnes  ex  hominibus  poll  fu- 
nera  divinitate  donati,  diique  indigites  poft  confecra- 
tionem  habiti  funt. 

*   IIoA^a  ^£  xat  ruv  Ue^y.uv  Stuv  t^a.    Strabo,   p.  1065, 

See  p.  1066. 

f  E^ya  &euv  re,  KCC\  uvfyuv  ruv  u^iruv,  ava^^oyri^  Strabo, 
h  15.  p.  1066. 

F  4  adorned 


72  Worfhlp  of  human  Spirits 

adorned  with  the  images  of  the  gods 
in  filver  and  gold  ;  and  upon  the  axle- 
tree  were  two  images  of  gold,  —  the  one 
reprefenting  Ninus,  the  other  Belus8. 
This  Belus  is  fuppofed  to  be  the  Nim- 
rod  of  the  Bible,  whom  the  Perfians 
ranked  amongft  the  gods  ;  and,  believing 
him  to  be  tranflated  into  the  ftars,  cal 
led  him  Orion  b.  We  may  proceed  far 
ther,  and  obferve, 

3.  That  the  Perfians  worfhipped  the 
gods  of  other  nations  that  were  of  mortal 
origin.  According  to  Herodotus,  when 
Xerxes  arrived  with  his  army  on  the 
banks  of  the  Scamander,  he  facrificed  a 
thouf  and  oxen  to  the  III  an  Minerva*  and  the 

*  Utrumque  currus  latus  deorum  fimulacra  ex  auro 
argentoque  exprefla  decorabant  :  —  Jugum,  ex  quo 
eminebant  duo  aurea  fimulacra  cubitalia,  quorum  al- 
terum  Nini,  alterum  Beli,  gerebat  effigiem.  Q^  Curt. 
1.3.  0.3.  p.  77.  ed.  Snaken.  —  Freinmemius  obferves, 
Per  Ninum  Aflyrias,  per  Belum  Babylonia?,  imperium 
conjunclum  innuebant  currus  Darii  artifices. 


Toy  Nt@gu$  yiyavra  Toy  TV>V  Bafivhuviav 
01  Tlegtrui  «9>o^iM$ifTflt   xat    ytvopiyov  ty  roi$ 

«•«  ttgetvv,  otlma,  )t.ottecriv  fipuvu.     Chronicon  Alexandria 
p,  84. 

magi 


in  barbarous  Nations.  73 

magi  poured  out  libations  to  the  heroes1. 
The  fame  Perfian  monarch  (hewed  a  reli 
gious  reverence  for  the  temple  of  Atha- 
mask.  Xenophon  teftifies,  that  Cyrus 
implored  the  affiftance  of  the  heroes,  the 
guardians  of  Media;  and  that  he  propi 
tiated  the  gods  and  guardian  heroes  of 
Aflyria1,  and  other  countries"1.  Thefe 
fa6ls  confirm  the  teftimonies  that  have 
been  produced  to  fhew,  that  they  ac 
knowledged  mortal  gods.  They  likewife 
ferve  to  demonftrate,  that,  when  the 
Perfians  under  Xerxes"  burnt  the  tem 
ples  and  images  of  the  Grecian  gods  and  he 
roes,  this  did  not  proceed  from  a  contempt 
of  thofe  gods  and  heroes,  but  from  their 
difapprobation  of  temples  and  images.  In 


Tvj 

ygaat  e^sxvro.    Herodot.    1.  7.    €.43. 
k  Kai  TO  rsfAivoq  lo-tfitro.   Id.   1.  7.   C.  197. 


KOLI 


.    Xenophon,  de  Inftit. 
Cyri,  1.  3.  0.3.  §.  ii. 

m  Particularly  of  Media.    Id.  1.8.  0.3.  §.  n. 
n  Herodot.  1.  8.  c.  143, 

confirmation 


74  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

confirmation  of  all  that  has  been  offered, 
we  may  obferve, 

4.  That,  notwithftanding  a  difference 
in  fome  particulars,  there  was  a  general 
agreement  between  the  religion  of  the 
Perfians  and  that  of  the  other  idolatrous 
nations.  This,  exclufive  of  all  teftimo- 
ny,  is  very  probable  in  itfelf :  for,  the 
Perfians  being  the  fame  people  with  the 
Celtes  °,  there  could  fcarcely  be  an  effen- 
tial  difference  between  them  with  refpe6t 
to  the  leading  principles  of  religion. 
They  are  reprefented  by  Herodotus p  as 
being  prone  to  imitate  the  manners  of  fo 
reigners,  particularly  the  Greeks ;  and 
this  difpofition  was  likely  to  extend  it's 
influence  beyond  the  affairs  of  civil  life, 
and  to  make  them  conformifts  in  religion. 
What  is  fo  probable  in  theory  is  confirm 
ed  by  fafts.  The  Perfians,  like  other 
nations,  worfhipped  the  natural  gods% 


«  See  Pelloutier's  Hift.  of  the  Celtes,  v.  I.  p.  19. 
P  L.  i.  c.  135. 
9  See  above,  p.  47. 

and 


in  barbarous  Nations.  75 

and  rivers  in  particular'.  Their  having 
no  covered  temples,  nor  any  images  of  the 
gods,  were  cuftoms  that  were  not  pecu 
liar  to  them,  though  they  diftinguifhed 
them  from  the  Greeks  ;  and  hardly  was 
any  praftice  more  common  than  to  fa- 
crificeupon  the  tops  of  mountains. 

In  many  other  refpefts  we  find  a  re 
markable  refemblance  between  the  theo 
logy  of  the  Perfians  and  that  of  other 
nations.  As  the  Greeks,  the  Egyptians, 
the  Phenicians,  the  Chaldeans,  and  o- 
ther  ancient  nations,  had  their  theogo- 
nies,  or  accounts  of  the  generation  of  the 

r  It  has  been  thought  inconfiftent  with  the  care  the 
Periians  took  to  preferve  the  purity  of  the  elements, 
(fee  Strabo,  p.  1066.)  that,  after  facrificing  white  horfes 
to  a  river,  they  mould  throw  their  carcafes  into  it  :  a 
circumftance  related  by  Herodotus,  1.  7.  c.  113.  and 
which  fome  have  ufed  to  difparage  his  teiUmony.  But 
the  carcafes  of  thefe  horfes  were  perhaps  embalmed  : 
which  fome  think  Herodotus  afFerts,  c.  114.  Befides,  the 
Jiorfes  were  confecrated  to  a  religious  purpofe.  It  was 
unlawful  to  throw  a  carcafe  into  the  fire  ;  but  this  did 
not  extend  to  facrifices.  Hyde,  p.  94.  Fire  and  water 
were  the  principal  obje&s  of  their  vvorlhip,  according 
$o  Strabo,  1. 15.  p.  1065. 

gods. 


7  6  Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

gods,  fo  likewife  had  the  Perfians'. 
Now  the  ancient  theogonies,  and  the 
Grecian  in  particular,  mix  with  the 
phyfical  an  hiftorical  relation  of  the  ge 
nealogy  of  the  gods,  and  record  the 
births  even  of  thofe  they  ftile  always  exift- 
ing,  and  immortal* ;  fuppofing  them  to  be 
generated  from  pre-exiftent  principles. 
This  ill  agrees  with  the  fuppolition  of  the 
Perfians  worfhipping  one  or  more  gods, 
under  the  chara&er  of  underived  and  e- 
ternal  beings. 

According  to  Herodotus",  whenPer- 
feus,  the  fon  of  Jupiter  and  Danae,  was 
with  Cepheus,  the  fon  of  Belus,  he 
married  his  daughter,  Andromeda  ;  and 
by  her  had  a  fon,  whom  he  named 
Perfeus,  from  whom  the  Perfians  took 
their  name.  Now  is  not  this  agreeable 

•  At  their  facrifices,  one  of  the  magi,  ftanding  up, 
maiiki  Stoyonav,  theogoniam  accinit.  Herodot.  1.  i. 
c.  132.  Compare  Diogenes  Laertius,  procem.  fegm.  9. 
where  it  is  faid,  upon  the  authority  of  Hecatseus,  that, 
according  to  the  magi,  the  gods  were  begotten. 

1  Hefiod.  Theogon.  v.  106. 

«  L.;.  c.6i. 

tQ 


'in  barbarous  Nations.  77 

to  the  genealogy  of  the  gods  and  heroes 
in  other  nations  ? 

As  the  Perfians  worlhipped  the  tutela 
ry  gods  of  other  countries,  fo  they  had 
fuch  deities  of  their  own*;  agreeably  to 
that  principle,  common  to  all  the  idola 
trous  nations,  that  each  of  them  had  it's 
peculiar  guardian  deity.  And  the  guar 
dian  deities  of  kingdoms  were  fuppofed  to 

w  Xerxes  thus  addreffes  the  Perfians  :  Nw  &  &«£«!- 
vuptv  ETTtvfa/xEvot  Tofcrt  Slain  rot  IIs^t^K  yw  XsAoyp^acr*.  He- 
rodot.  1.7.  0.53.  To  one  or  more  of  thefe  tutelary 
deities  they  feem  to  have  given  the  name  of  Jupiter  : 
for,  befides  the  Jupiter  whom  they  conceived  of  as  the 
whole  circumference  of  bea<ven,  Xenophon  fpeaks  of  ano 
ther  who  was  a  local  deity,  king  and  patron  of  Perfia. 
KI^OS  eSue  An  /3a<nJ\£i.  De  Inftitut.  Cyri,  1.3.  c.  3.  §.n. 
An  Trar^ww  E$ve.  Id.  ib.  Vide  1.  8.  c.  j .  Probably  for 
him  it  was  that  a  chariot  was  provided,  upon  occasion 
of  Xerxes's  expedition  againft  Greece.  Herodot.  1.  7. 
c.  40.  The  chariot  was  drawn  by  eight  white  horfes : 
an  honour  peculiar  to  Jupiter  amongft  the  Romans. 
By  the  Jupiter,  fpoken  of  by  Xenophon,  fome  fuppofe 
we  are  to  underftand  Belus.  Xerxes  alfo  feems  to  have 
been  called  Jupiter:  for  Themiftocles  told  him,  that  he 
was  directed  by  Jupiter  of  Dodona  to  go  to  a  perfon  of 
the  fame  name  with  the  god,  opuwpw  ra  Sa«,  which  he 
afligns  as  the  reafon  of  coming  to  Xerxes;  though  Plu 
tarch  might  only  mean,  that  each  was  called  the  great 
king.  Plutarch.  Vit.  Themiftoclis,  p.  126.  A. 

be 


Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

be  the  fpirits  of  thofe  illuftrious  men  by 
whom  they  were  founded  or  inlarged  .  This 
is  a  full  proof  of  the  Perfians  worshipping 
human  fpirits,  as  the  Greeks  and  other 
nations  did.  At  the  fame  time  it  ac 
counts  for  Mardonius's  ufmg  the  Grecian 
rites  of  worjhip*. 

As  a  farther  proof  of  the  great  confor 
mity  between  the  theology  of  Perfia  and 
that  of  other  idolatrous  nations,  it  may 
be  obferved,  that  the  Perfians  facrificed 
to  Thetis  and  the  Nereids  ;  and  that  the 
reafon  of  their  facrificing  to  the  former 
was  their  learning  from  the  Ionian*,  that 
fhe  was  taken  away  by  Peleus  out  of  this 
country,  and  that  all  the  coaft  of  Sepias 
is  dedicated  to  her  and  the  reft  of  the 
Nereids7.  Many  learned  men  have  fup- 
pofed,  that  Nereus  was  a  prince,  and 
the  Nereids  princeffes,  who  had  impro 
ved  navigation  $  and  confequently  that 
they  were  human  perfonages  :  which  is 
much  confirmed  by  the  rapture  of  Thetis, 


£££ETO.   Herodct,  L  9*  c.  36. 
T.  Herodot.  1.  7.  c.  191. 

one 


'in  barbarous  Nations.  79 

one  of  the  Nereids.  Theworfhip,  there 
fore,  paid  to  thefe  deities  by  the  Per 
fians,  is  not  only  a  proof  of  the  great 
conformity  between  their  theology  and 
that  of  the  Grecians,  but  is  alfo  a  new 
inftance,  furnifhed  by  Herodotus  him- 
felf,  of  the  Perfians  facrificing  to  hu 
man  fpirits. 

Too  nearly  did  the  Perfians  conform 
to  the  other  idolatrous  nations  in  the 
moft  barbarous  a£ts  of  worfhip.  Du 
ring  a  tempeft  the  magi  offered  up  hu 
man  vi6limsz,  as  well  as  endeavoured  to 
charm  the  winds  by  magical  enchant 
ments.  We  are  told,  by  Plutarch,  that 
Ameftris,  the  wife  of  Xerxes,  buried 
twelve  people  alive  to  Pluto  on  her  own 

2  Herodot.  1.  7.  c.  191.  I  have  followed  We/Teling's 
translation  of  the  original  words,  tvropu.  ?s  7ro»Et>m$.  The 
phrafe  does  not  neceffarily  import  the  fpecies  of  the  fa- 
crifice  fpoken  of;  but  it  is  applied  to  human  vidims  by 
Herodotus,  1.2.  c.  119.  and  is  fo  underftood  here  by 
H.  Stephens,  torn.  III.  p.  1401.  as  well  as  by  Weffe- 
ling.  See  the  note  of  the  latter  on  Herodot.  1.  2, 
c.  119.  Every  one  will  recoiled:  that  line  of  Virgil, 
<ffin.II.  116. 

Sanguine  placafti  rentes,  et  virgine  csefa. 

account. 


So  Worjbfp  of  human  Spirits 

account*.  And  from  Herodotus  we  learn, 
that  fhe  caufed  fourteen  children  of  the 
beft  families  in  Perfia  to  be  interred  alive, 
as  a  gratification  to  the  god  faid  to  be 
beneath  the  earth  b.  The  fame  hiftorian 
informs  us,  that,  when  the  army  of  Xer 
xes  came  to  a  place  called  the  Nine  Ways, 
the  magi  took  nine  of  thefons  and  daugh 
ters  of  the  inhabitants,  and  buried  them 
alive,  as  the  manner  of  the  Perfiam  isb.  It 
has  been  fuggefted,  but  without  any 
good  reafon,  that  Plutarch  and  Herodo 
tus  have  reproached  them  unjuftly  with 
offering  human  facrifices.  But  fuch  fa- 
crifices  were  common  amongft  the  an 
cients,  and  fixed  no  peculiar  fligma  on 
the  Perfiansc.  As  to  the  cuftom  of  bu 

rying 


3  De  Superflit.  p.  171,  D.     Acre's  &,  «  Ssgf« 

auoexa,  x.cnugv%tv  avS^wsra?  £wvTa?  VJTIQ  CCVTVIS  TU  A&j.  In 
his  Ifis  &  Ofir.  p.  369,  E.  he  fays,  the  Perfians  invcr- 
ked  Pluto. 

b  Herod.  1.  7.  c.  114.      Comp.  I.  3.  c.  35. 

c  In  confirmation  of  the  authorities  produced  above, 
to  fliew  that  the  Perfians  were  chargeable  with  offering 
human  facrifices,  I  would  obferve,  that,  when  the  Gre 

cians 


in  barbarous  Nations.  8 1 

lying  human  viftims  alive,  it  obtained 
amongft  the  Romans4.  The  fafts,  there 
fore,  laft  ftated,  like  many  mentioned 
before,  concerning  the  Perfians,  are  di- 
re6l  proofs,  not  only  of  a  general  cor- 
refpondence  between  their  religion  and 
that  of  other  nations,  but  alfo  of  their 
worfhipping  dead  men  :  for  amongft  this 
number  Pluto6  muft  be  reckoned. 

The  fame  conclufion  may  be  drawn 
from  their  necromancy f,  or  divination 
by  confulting  the  dead.  This  fuperfti- 
tion,  which  is  fuppofed  to  have  had  it's 

clans  adopted  the  Worfhip  of  Mithras,  they  offered 
him  human  victims.  Photius,  in  Vita  Athanafii,  p.  1446. 
Hyde,  p.  112. 

d  Liv.  1.  II.  0.57. 

e  See  Letters  to  Worthington,  p.  37,  42. 

f  Quod  genus  divinationis  Varro  a  Perfis  dicit  alia- 
turn,  quo  et  ipfum  Numam,  et  poitea  Pythagoram  phi- 
lofophum,  ufum  fuiffe  commemorant  :  ubi  adhibito 
fanguine  etiam  inferos  perhibet  fcifcitari  ;  et  yExuo/Aar- 
iuuv  Grxce  dicit  vocari :  quse,  five  hydromantia,  five 
riecromantia,  dicatur,  id  ipfum  eft,  ubi  videntur  rnor- 
tui  divinare.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  7.  c.  35.  How  ill 
does  the  account  given  of  Zoroafter,  by  the  modern 
writers  cited  by  Dr.  Hyde,  agree  with  this  very  ancient 
teilimony  of  the  learned  Varro  ! 

G  rife 


82          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

rife  in  Perfiag,  was  very  generally  prac- 
tifed  in  the  heathen  nations  -,  and  it  was 
a  fpecies  of  idolatry  which  had  for  it's 
obje6l  the  fpirits  of  departed  men.  Not 
to  defcend  into  more  particulars,  Aga- 
thias  quotes  very  ancient  hiftorians,  (Be- 
rofus  the  Babylonian,  Athenocles,  and 
Symmachus,)  as  affirming,  that  the  Per- 
fiansworfhipped  of  old  Jupiterand  Saturn, 
and  all  the  other  celebrated  gods  of  Greece11, 
but  under  different  names. 

It  is  time  to  clofe  this  article,  which 
has  been  drawn  out  to  fo  great  a  length, 
on  account  of  it's  fmgular  importance, 
and  the  very  different  view  generally 
given  of  it  by  learned  men.  From 
all  that  has  been  offered,  it  appears, 
that,  if  we  clear  the  Perfians  from  the 
charge  of  idolatry  upon  the  evidence 
produced  by  Dr.  Hyde,  we  adopt  an 

8  Magic,  according  to  Pliny,  (1.  30,  c.  I.)  was  the 
invention  of  Zoroafter. 

**  To  fjt.£V  yot>%  itahouQv,  Ata  fs  xa*  K^onoy,  x&»  tars?  & 
enravras  T»?  •ra^'E^cn  fyvKhUfAivaq  ETJ/XWV  Se»$.  Agathlas, 
1.  2.  p.  58.  ed.  Lugd.  Bat.  1594. 

hypothefis 


in  barbarous  Nations.  83 

hypothefis  very  improbable  in  itfelf,  and 
ill  fupported.  At  the  fame  time  we  con- 
tradift  the  teftimony  of  numerous  unex 
ceptionable  witnefles  to  the  fafts  here 
ftated  y  the  truth  of  which  might  even 
have  been  prefumed  from  their  own  in 
ternal  credibility,  confidering  the  difpo- 
fition  and  lituationof  the  Perfians.  —  It 
farther  appears,  that  the  difference  be-^ 
tween  them  and  the  Greeks,  pointed  out 
by  HerodotuSj  is  not  fo  confiderable  as 
has  been  fuppofed  -,  and  very  probably 
did  not  fubfift  for  any  great  length  of  time 
after  the  age  of  that  hiftorian*.  This 
difference  was  perfectly  confident  with  a 
general  agreement  in  other  refpefts,  and 
particularly  with  the  deification  of  hu 
man  fpirits.  Indeed,  the  ancient  Perfians 
are  one  of  the  laft  nations  which  can  be 
fufpefted  of  not  worshipping  the  fpirits 

1  We  learn  from  Strabo,  p.  1065,  that  in  Cappado- 
cia,  where  there  was  a  great  number  of  the  magi,  there 
were  alfo  many  temples  of  the  Perfian  gods,  and  ^ftatue 
of  Omanus,  p.  1066,  a  Perfian  demon,  p.  779.  See 
above,  p.  71*  note  *. 

G    2  Of 


84  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

of  illuflrious  men,  if  it  be  true,  as  is 
generally  allowed,  that  they  afferted  the 
exiilence  of  divine  genii,  who  afTumed 
for  a  time  the  human  nature. 

The  foregoing  obfervations  are  not 
offered  as  a  vindication  of  any  thing  I 
had  formerly  advanced  on  the  fubject  of  the 
heathen  gods,  but  are  the  refult  of  an 
unbiaffed  inquiry.  Whether  they  arejuft, 
others  are  more  able  to  determine. 

VII.  Concerning  the  Arabians,  Mr. 
Fellk  (copying  Dr.  Blackwell1)  fays, 
that  <c  they  acknowledged  no  other  gods 
"  befides  the  fun  and  moon."  In 
proof  of  this  aflertion  we  are  referred  to 
Herodotus.  But  the  text  of  this  hiftorian 
ought  to  have  been  given  the  reader,  and 
not  merely  the  comment  upon  it.  His 
words  are171,  *?bey  acknowlege  no  other  gods 
than  Dionyfus  (or  Bacchus)  and  Urania: 

k    P.  8. 

1  Mythol.  p.  273. 

171  AKJVVFOV  $s  Qsov  pavov  xat  ?w  Ovgotvir/y  ^-ysoi/rai  sweet.  — • 
t  ^e  rov  psv  AIOVIKTOV,  Of^oraAT*  tw  &  Ovgavwv, 
Herodot.  1.  3.  c.  8. 

—  "  they 


in  barbarous  Nations.  85 

—  "  they   call  the  former  Urofalf,  and 
"  the  latter  Alilat" 

Had  Mr.  Fell,  inftead  of  tranfcri- 
bing  a  modern  author,  confulted  Hero 
dotus,  he  would  have  found  that  this 
hiftorian  could  not,  by  Bacchus,  under- 
ftand  the  fun,  becaufe  he  fpeaks  of  it  as 
no  improbable  conjecture  of  the  Arabi 
ans,  that  the  cinnamon  grew  in  the 
countries  in  which  Bacchus  was  educa 
ted*.  From  other  writers  we  have  cer 
tain  information,  that  Bacchus  was  an 
illuftrious  conqueror0.  Strabop  in  par 
ticular  informs  us,  that  Alexander, 
finding  the  Arabians  had  only  two  gods, 
(viz.  Jupiter  and  Bacchus,)  thought  he 
had  a  right  to  be  worfhipped  as  a  thirdy 

n  Id.  c.  III.  Plutarch  fpeaks  of  the  nurfes  of  Bac 
chus.  Vit.  Camilli,  p.  131.  C. 

0  Sir  Ifaac  Newton  (Chronol.  p.  98,  99.)  takes  Se- 
fac  to  be  the  Bacchus  of  the  Arabians,  and  their  Cce- 
lus,  or  Uranus,  or  Jupiter  Uranius,  to  be  the  fame 
king  of  Egypt  with  his  father  Hammon,  according  to 
Lucan  : 

Quamvis  jEthiopun)  populis,  Arabumque  beat's 
Gentibus,  atque  Indis,  unus  fit  Jupiter  Ammon. 

P  Lib.  16.  p.  1076. 

G  3  provided 


86  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

provided  he  conquered,  and  reftored 
their  former  liberty.  Arrian q  confirms 
the  teftimony  of  Strabo;  telling  us, 
that  the  Arabians  wor (hipped  only  Ura 
nus  and  Dionyfus r  -,  and  afligning  the 
reafon  of  their  worshipping  the  latter, 
viz.  t  be  fame  of  leading  an  army  into  India*, 
in  which  refpect,  he  adds,  Alexander 
did  not  think  himfelf  inferior  to  him, 
and  therefore  pleaded  he  had  an  equal 
right  to  their  worfhip.  As  to  the  Urania 
or  Alilat  of  the  Arabs,  whom  Herodo 
tus  joins  with  Bacchus,  fince  the  latter 
has  been  proved  to  be  a  human  perfo- 
nage,  we  may  reafonably  conclude  that 
fuch  alfo  the  former  was.  She  is 
probably  the  fame  with  the  Alitta  fpo- 
ken  of  above',  and  confequently  no 
other  than  the  Syrian  Aftarte  j  of 
whom  farther  mention  will  be  made 

i  De  Expedit.  Alexand.  p.  300.  ed.  Gronovii. 
r  Comp.  p.  85.  note  °. 

*  Kara  co|«»  TJJJ  EJ  Iv^yy  rfaTtaj. 

*  P.  48,  68. 

in 


in  barbarous  Nations.  87 

in  the  fequel.  Amongft  the  gods  of 
this  people,  Tertullian  x  reckons  Dy- 
fares  ,  Suidas,  Mars,  (which  figni- 
fies  the  valiant7  -J  and  Porphyry*,  Du- 
matius,  to  whom  they  annually  offered 
a  human  vi6tim. 

If  you  choofe  to  fet  afide  the  authority 
of  the  Greeks,  and  to  rely  rather  on  the 
oriental  writers ;    one  well    acquainted 
with  them  has  given  us  the  names  of  fome 
of    their   antediluvian  idols,    or    what 
were  faid  to   be  fuch,  which  the  Arabs 
acknowleged  as  gods,  having  been  men 
of  great  piety  and  merit  in  their  times8. 
And,  though  the  idols  were  not  fuppofed 
to  befuijurisy  (or  gods  in  their  own  na 
tural  right,  but  only  companions  of  God,) 
yet  they  offered  facrifices  and  other  obla 
tions   to   them   as  well  as  to  God,  who 

*  Apol.  c.  24. 

y  Sir  If.  Newton's  Chronol.  p.  98.     §ee  above  con 
cerning  Mars,  p.  27,  35. 

z  De  Abftinent.  1.  2.   §.  56. 

»  Sale's  Koran,  preliminary  Difc.  p.  19.  qto. 

G  4  was 


88  Worfiip  cf  human  Spirits 

was  often  put  off  with  the  leaft  portion b. 
Somewhat  of  this  kind  we  obferve  in  po- 
pifh  countries.  The  rofary  afcribed  to 
the  Virgin  Mary  confifts  of  a  hundred 
and  fifty  Ave-Marias,  and  only  fifteen 
Pater-nofters. 

Should  it  be  here  objected,  that  the 
only  gods  of  the  Arabs  taken  notice  of  in 
the  book  of  Jobc  are  the  fun  and  moon, 
and  therefore  that  thefe  were  the  fole  ob- 
je6ls  of  idolatrous  worfhip  in  the  age  in 
which  that  book  was  written ;  I  anfwer, 
that,  even  fuppofing  this  to  be  the  cafe 
in  the  land  of  Uz,  where  Job  lived,  it 
will  not  follow  from  hence  that  it  was 
the  fame  every  where  elfe.  Nay,  had  this 
been  the  cafe  univerfally  in  the  age  here 
fpoken  of,  yet  it  might  be  quite  other- 
wife  in  fucceeding  ages.  According  to  a 
late  writer d,  the  defcription  of  idolatry 
in  the  book  of  Job  is  of  greater  antiquity 
than  that  given  by  Mofes.  But  the  quef- 

b  Id.  p.  16. 
c  Ch.  31,  26, 

d  Fell,  F.  36. 

tion 


in  barbarous  Nations.  89 

tion  agitated  in  the  DifTertation  concer 
ned  only  the  gods  of  the  Heathens ;  that 
is,  the  nations  contradiftinguifhed  from 
the   Ifraelites;  a   diftin6lion  that  could 
not  take  place  before  the  time  of  Mofes, 
when  the  Ifraelites  were  firft  formed  in 
to  a  nation.     The  queftion  had  no  rela 
tion  to  any  times,  or  countries,  but  thofe 
in  which  fome  demons  were  acknowledged 
as  a  diftinft   order  of  deities   from  the 
heavenly  bodies.   But,  after  all,  the  lan 
guage  of  Job  neither  afTerts,  nor  implies, 
that  there  were  no  other  objefts  of  ido 
latrous  worfhip  in  his  age  or  in  his  coun 
try  befides  the  fun  and  moon.  When  he 
was  aflerting  his  own  freedom  from  ido 
latry,  he  naturally  obferved  that  he  was 
not  chargeable  even  with  the  moft  fpe- 
cious  and  alluring  kind  of  it  -y  that  nei 
ther  the  fun  when  it  Jhined,  nor  the  moon 
walking  in  brightnefs^  had  tempted  him  to 
pay  them   any  religious  honours.      So 
that  the  occafion  led  him  to  fpecify  the 
fun  and  moon  rather  than  any  other  ob 
jects   of    idolatrous    worfhip  3     though 

there 


90  Worfkip  of  human  Spirits 

there  might  be  in  the  land  of  Uz,  even 
at  the  early  period  when  he  is  fuppofed 
to  have  lived,  many  fuch,  both  other 
celeftial  luminaries  and  human  fpirits. 
And  it  is  with  peculiar  impropriety  that 
the  language  of  Job  is  urged  to  overturn 
the  teftimonies  to  the  worfhip  of  dead 
men  and  women  in  other  countries  and 
in  later  times. 

VIII.  Mr.  Fell  e  tells  us,  that  cc  the 
"  inhabitants  of  Meroe  in  ^Ethiopia 
cc  worfhipped  no  other  gods  than  Jupi- 
<c  ter  and  Bacchus  ;  that  is,  the  liea- 
"  vens  and  the  fun."  This  writer  (hould 
have  faid,  "  In  this  manner  is  Herodo- 
"  tus  explained  by  Dr.  Blackwell"f. 
What  the  hiftorian  really  fays  is,  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Meroe  worfhipped  no 
other  gods  than  Jupiter  and  Bacchus, 
and  had  an  oracle  of  Jupiter  8  :  a  plain 
proof  that  Jupiter  here  denotes  a  human 


e  P.  8. 

f  Mythol.  p.  274. 
8  Aio.  Sew  y.a,i  Awwcrov 
T»:IOV  Aioi;  x«T£r>;y.£.    Herodot.  1.  2.  c. 


fpirit, 


in  barbarous  Nations.  91 

fpirit.  In  the  opinion  of  Sir  Ifaac  New 
ton  h,  thefe  two  gods  were  Jupiter  Am- 
mon  and  Ofiris,  according  to  the  lan 
guage  of  Egypt.  We  are  informed  by 
Strabo,  that  the  ^Ethiopians  had  both  an 
immortal^  and  a  mortal^  god i ;  that  they 
commonly  deified  their  benefaftors  and 
perfons  of  royal  birth k ;  that  they  re 
garded  their  kings  as  the  common  faviours 
and  prefers ers  of  all1  ^  and  even  worfhip- 
ped  them  as  gods  while  living*.  The 
inhabitants  of  Meroe  in  particular  wor- 

h  Chronol.  p.  213. 


Strabo,  1.  17.  p.  1177,   1178. 
k   P.  1178.     £2$ 


xoivy?  onfotvTuv 
.   Ib. 


oixagys  TO  TrXaoj*.  P.  1177.  —  This  ^s  confirmed  by  the 
tefiimony  of  Diodorus  Siculus,  who  fays,  (1.  3.  p.  177. 
«d.  WefTeling.)  that,  as  foon  as  the  king  was  chofen, 
the  people  worihipped  him  as  a  god  :  Et$i/$  $e  xot,t 


{hipped 


92  Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

fhipped  Hercules.,  Pan,  and  Ifis,  with  an 
other  foreign  deity". 

Here  the  reader  may  paufe  a  moment, 
and  review  the  ground  he  has  been  tread 
ing.  The  heathen  gods  were  of  two 
forts  ;  the  conftituent  parts  and  princi 
ples  of  the  world,  and  demons.  The 
Heathens  aflerted  the  exiftence  of  de 
mons  of  a  celeftial  origin  ;  but  the  Dif- 
fertation  undertook  to  prove,  that  fuch 
demons,  as  were  the  more  immediate 
obje6ts  of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  in  cer 
tain  nations,  were  natives  of  the  earth. 
We  have  feen  °  what  induilry  a  late  wri 
ter  exerted  to  difguife  this  propofition  ; 
let  us  now  confider,  whether  he  attacks 
it  with  judgement  and  fuccefs,  or  even 
took  his  aim  aright.  The  propofition 
was  explained  concerning  the  polifhed  na 
tions  of  the  world  ;  but  the  gentleman 


T»V;  QaqGlMW  Strabo,  1.  17.  p,  1178. 
This  foreign  god  could  not  be  either  an  elementary  or 
fidereal  deity,  any  more  than  Hercules,  or  Pan,  cr 
Ifis. 

0  P.  11-17. 

draws 


in  barbarous  Nations.  93 

draws  his  objections  from  the  fuppofed 
cafe  of  Barbarians,  and  the  greateft  fa- 
vages.  The  propofition  refpe6led  only 
thofe  nations  in  which,  befides  the  na 
tural  gods,  demons  alfo,  of  one  kind  or 
other,  were  worfhipped  ;  but  the  gen 
tleman  undertakes  to  confute  it  by  the 
cafe  of  thofe  people  who,  according  to 
his  account  of  them,  had  no  demons  at 
all.  Had  his  fafts  been  true,  they 
would  have  been  foreign  from  the  point. 

But  the  fa6ls  which  he  alleges  are  not 
true.  There  is  pofitive  evidence,  that, 
out  of  the  eight  fore-mentioned  nations, 
which  he  affirms  acknowledged  only  the 
natural  gods,  feven  *  worfliipped  human 
fpirits.  Nay,  fome  of  them  had  no  o- 
other  deities  but  thefe p.  He  not  only 
adopts  Dr.  BlackwelPs  peculiar  interpre 
tations  without  acknowledging  his  ob 
ligation,  but  copies  his  miftakes ;  which 
is  a  fure  proof  that  he  took  every  thing 
upon  truft,  and  had  himfelf  no  know- 

*  The  cafe  of  the  Maflagetes  alone  is  doubtful.  P.  28. 
P  P.  32. 

ledge 


94  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

ledge  of  his  fubjeft.  When  Mr.  Fell  de- 
ferts  his  guide,  he  is  far  from  appearing 
to  greater  advantage  :  for  then,  inftead 
of  mifinterpreting  ancient  authors,  we 
find  him  boldly  affirming  fa£ls  that  are 
falfe,  without  producing  any  teftimony 
to  fupport  them,  as  in  the  cafe  of  the 
Goths  5  or  appealing  to  the  teftimony  of 
writers  who  contradift  their  truth,  as 
in  the  cafe  of  the  Getes.  Such  is  this 
gentleman's  manner  of  writing  !  It  does 
equal  credit  to  his  candour,  his  judge 
ment,  and  his  learning. 

SECT.     II. 

Shewing ,  from  the  teftimony  of  the  Heathens, 
that  many   other,  barbarous  nations,  be- 
fides  thofe  fpecified  in  the  preceding  fee- 
tion>  paid  divine  honours  to  deceafed  men. 

np HOUGH,  to  avoid  being  tedious, 

I  fhall  purpofely  ornit  many  in- 

ftances  of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 

in 


in  barbarous  Nations.  95 

in  fome  of  the  barbarous  nations  pafTed 
over  by  a  late  writer,  yet  the  proofs  of 
it  in  others,  that  will  be  here  produced, 
added  to  thofe  recited  in  the  preceding 
feftion,  will  be  fufficient  to  Ihew  how 
generally  it  prevailed  in  the  continents  of 
Africa,  Europe,  and  Afia. 

I.  I  fhall  begin  with  the  mention  of 
feveral  barbarous  nations  in  Africa^  in 
which  kings  and  heroes  were  ranked  a- 
mongft  the  gods. 

Under  the  term,  JEtbwpitty  the  an 
cients  comprehended  a  large  part  of 
Middle  Africa,  with  as  much  of  the 
fouthern  part  of  Africa  as  was  then 
known.  In  this  extenfive  country,  and 
particularly  at  Meroe,  the  metropolis  of 
it,  the  inhabitants  deified  their  princes 
and  benefaftors  ;  as  was  fliewn  above q. 

There  is  a  paflage  in  Herodotus,  (o- 
verlooked  by  Dr.  Blackwcll,  and  confe- 
quently  not  noticed  by  Mr.  Fell,  though 
more  to  his  purpofe  than  any  other,)  in 
which  this  hiftorian,  when  fpeaking  of 

*  p.  90,  91,  92. 

fome 


g6  Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

fome  of  the  Libyan  nomades,  fays,  they 
facrifice  to  no  other  gods  than  the  fun  and 
moon r.  He  adds,  to  thefe  all  the  Libyans 
facrifice.  It  is  here  taken  notice  of,  as  a 
very  fingular  circumftance,  that  fome  of 
the  tribes  of  Libya  worfhipped  the  fun 
and  moon  alone ;  which  fliews  that  the 
pra6lice  of  the  other  tribes  was  different. 
According  to  the  fame  author,  the  Li 
byans  always  worfhipped  Neptune5,  who 
was  the  fon  of  Pontus ',  and  is  thought 
to  have  been  originally  of  Phenicia,  and 
to  have  fettled  afterwards  upon  the  fea- 
coafls  of  Libya.  Many  writers  confirm 
the  opinion  of  his  being  a  human  per- 
fonage u.  Pfaphon  was  deified  by  the  Li 
byans,  for  teaching  birds  to  fmg  thefe 
words,  The  great  god  Pfaphon  w.  Thofe 
Libyans,  who  dwelt  about  the  lake  Tri- 

*  Herodot.  1.4.  c.  188. 
9  L,  2.  c.  50. 

«  Sanchoniathon,  ap.  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  I.  p.  38. 
«  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5.  p.  386.  ed.  Weeding.     Ladtant. 
Div.  Inft.  1.  i.  c.  10. 

*  Maxim.  Tyr.  Difiert.  19, 

tonis, 


in  barbarous  Nation*.  97 

tonis,  facrificed  to  Triton  as  well  as  Nep 
tune,  and  principally  to  Minerva x. 

The  Augilites  had  no  other  gods  but 
the  manes,  according  to  Pomponius 
Mela y,  whofe  teftimony  is  confirmed  by 
Pliny  z.  The  inhabitants  of  Cyrene  wor- 
fhipped  their  king  Battus,  the  founder 
of  their  kingdom a.  In  Africa  Propria, 
which  lay  between  Cyrenaica  and  Mau 
ritania,  Mopfus,  king  of  the  Argives, 
was  admitted  into  the  number  of  the 
gods  b.  The  Syrian  ElifTa,  the  founder 

*  Herodot.  1.  4.  c.  188.  Concerning  Minerva,  fee 
Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  p.  38. 

Y  Augilae  manes  tantum  deos  putant ;  per  eos  deje- 
rant ;  eos  ut  oracula  confulunt ;  precatique  quse  volunt, 
ubi  tumulis  incubuere,  pro  refponfis  ferunt  fomnia. 
Pomp.  M.  1.  i.  c.  8. 

z  Augilae  inferos  tantum  colunt.  Pliny,  1.  5.  c.  8» 
Compare  what  Herodotus  fays  of  the  Nafamones,  1.  4. 
c.  172.  and  Tertullian,  de  Anima,  c.  57. 

a  Herodot.  1.4.  c.  r6i. 

b  Quippe  tantum  eos  deos  appellant,  qui,  ex  eodera 
numero  juile  ac  prudenter  vitse  curriculo  gubernato,  pro 
numine  poftea  ab  hominibus  proditi,  fanis  et  caeremo- 
niis  vulgo  advertuntur :  ut  in  "Bceotia  Amphiaraus,  in 
Africa  Mopfus,  in  ^£gypto  Ofiris,  alius  aliubi  gentium, 
^fculapius  ulique.  Apuleius,  de  Deo  Socrat.  p.  689, 
690.  torn.  2.  ed.  Delph, 

H  of 


98         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

of  Carthage,  was  worfhipped  in  that 
city,  as  long  as  it  remained  unconquer- 
edc.  In  the  fame  city  a  temple  was  e- 
redled  to  JEfculapius  d.  The  Carthagi 
nians  alfo  facrificed  to  Amilcar e.  We 
are  here  more  direftly  examining  the  tef- 
timony  of  the  Heathens  themfelves  con 
cerning  their  own  gods  •,  otherwife  I 
might  take  notice,  that  Chriftian  writers 
inform  us,  that  the  Mauritanians  wor 
fhipped  their  kings f. 

The  Atlantians^  a  people  who  inha 
bited  the  weftern  parts  of  Africa,  boaft- 
ed  that  their  country  was  the  birth 
place  of  the  gods g.  Their  firft  king, 
Uranus,  or  Coslus,  whofe  name  was 

c  Quamdiu  Carthago  iuvifta  fuit,  pro  dea  culta  eft. 
Juftin.  1.  18.  c.  6. 

d  Strabo,  1.  17,  p.  1189. 

e  Herodot.  1.  7.  c.  167. 

f  Unicuique  etiam  provinciae  et  civitati  fuus  deus  eft; 
wt  Syri^  Aftarte,  ut  Arabia  Difares,  ut  Noricis  Bele- 
ntts,  ut  Africae  Caeleftis,  ut  Mauritania  reguli  fui. 
Tertull.  Apol.  c.  24.  —  Hac  fcilicet  ratione  confecra- 
verunt  et  Mauri  reges  fuos.  Ladtant.  1.  i.  c.  15. 

g  Diodor.  Sic.  1.3.  p.  224, 

given 


in  barbarous  Nations.  99 

given  to  heaven,  received  divine  honours 
after  his  death  h ;  and  fo  alfo  did  his 
wife  Titsea,  and  (he  was  called  Gee,  or 
the  earth h.  Their  daughter,  Bafilea, 
married  Hyperion,  her  brother,  and  by 
him  had  two  children,  Helion  and  Se 
lene  :  names  that  from  them  were  given 
to  the  fun  and  moon,  and  under  which 
they  received  the  honours  of  thofe  ce- 
leftial  luminaries1.  Bafilea  was  wor- 
fhipped  under  the  title  of  the  great  mo 
ther  of  the  gods,  on  account  of  the 
care  (he  took  of  the  education  of  her 
brothers  and  fitters,  the  titans  ;  one  of 
whom,  Atlas,  was  worfhipped  in  the 
ftar  that  bears  his  name ;  and  another, 
Saturn,  was  the  father  of  the  Jupiter 
who  was  furnamed  Olympian.  They  al 
low,  that  there  was  another  Jupiter,  the 
brother  of  Uranus,  and  king  of  Crete  k. 
To  the  nations  of  Africa  that  wor 
fhipped  human  fpirits,  already  taken 

h  p.  225. 

*  P.  226. 

*  p.  229,  230. 

H  2  notice 


ioo         Worjbip  of  human  Spirits 

notice  of,  the  Egyptians  might  be  ad 
ded  :  but  their  cafe  will  more  properly 
fall  under  confederation  in  the  next 
chapter. 

II.  As  to  Europe,  it  will  not  be  im 
proper  to  begin  with  obferving,  that 
this  continent  was  by  fome  called  Cel- 
tua ;  a  name  which  it  derived  from  the 
Celtes,  the  dependents  of  the  Cimbri, 
part  of  whom  came  from  Babylon  into 
the  weftern  parts  of  the  world.  Under 
the  term,  Celtes,  were  comprehended 
all  thofe  nations  which  were  fometimes 
diftinguifhed  by  the  name  of  Scythians, 
Celto-Scythians,  Getae,  Gallacians,  Gal- 
logrecians,  Celtiberians,  Teutones,  Ger 
mans,  and  Gauls.  They  were  fpread, 
from  the  fea-fhores  of  Britain  and  Gaul, 
as  far  eaft  as  the  Palus  Maeotis,  at  the 
extremity  of  the  Euxine  fea ;  and  from 
the  fouthernmoft  parts  of  Spain  to  the 
northern  fea,  which  lies  off  Archangel 
in  Ruflia1.  And,  if  we  except  the 

fouthern 

1  See  The  Antiquities  of  Cornwall,  by  the  very  learned 
and  judicious  Dr.  Borlafe,  book  i.  ch.  4.  p.  14.  and 

compare 


in  barbarous  Nations.  i  o  i 

fouthern  parts  of  Italy,  Greece,  and  the 
ifles  of  the  ^Egean  fea,  all  Europe  may 
be  juftly  faid  to  have  been  peopled  by 
the  ancient  Cimbri,  or  (as  they  were 
foon  afterwards  called)  Celtae171. 

It  has  been  (hewn  already,  that  dead 
men  were  worfhipped  by  many  nations 
of  the  Celtes,  both  in  Afia  and  Europe, 
and  particularly  by  the  Scythians,  the 
Getes,  the  Goths,  and  Germans.  Now, 
it  feems  very  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that 
the  other  Celtic  nations  worfhipped  the 
fame  gods,  or  at  leaft  did  not  defert  the 
general  principle  of  deifying  their  kings 
and  heroes,  maintained  by  thofe  from 
whom  they  were  defcended ;  efpecially 
as  it  is  well  known  that  the  Heathens  in 

compare  Pezron's  Antiquities  of  Nations,  book  I.  and 
the  Ancient  Univerfal  Hiftory,  v.  6.  ch.  12.  feel.  i. 
8vo.  ed.  1747. 

m  Pezron  endeavours  to  (hew,  that  feveral  nations  of 
Greece  and  Italy  were  defcendents  of  the  Titans,  whom 
he  takes  to  be  the  fame  with  the  Celtse.  Book  i.  But 
thefe  countries  and  the  iflands  of  the  ^Egean  fea  were 
peopled  from  the  Syrian  continent,  according  to  Dr, 
Borlafe. 

H  3  general 


102         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

general  were  very  tenacious  of  the  reli 
gion  of  their  anceftors.  Upon  inquiry, 
it  will  appear,-  that  the  religion  of  all 
thefe  nations  was,  in  that  effential  point 
which  I  have  been  endeavouring  to  ef- 
tablifh,  one  and  the  fame. 

The  Celtes,  under  the  title  of  Iberi 
ans  and  Celtiberians,  inhabited  the 
country  now  called  Spain n.  The  Acci- 
tani°,  a  people  of  this  country,  wor- 
fhipped  an  image  of  Mars,  who  could 
be  no  other  than  the  god  of  the  fame 
name  amongft  the  Germans p,  and  the 
Odhen  of  the  Goths q.  The  Lufitani- 
ans  alfo  facrificed  to  Mars r.  The  Mer 
cury  (or  Teutates)  of  the  Iberians  was 
the  fame  with  him  who  was  worfhipped 
under  that  name  by  the  Gauls,  who 
will  be  fpoken  of  in  the  fequel.  A  tern* 

n  Pliny,  1.  3.  c,  I, 

0  Accitani,  Hifpana  gens,  fimulachrum  Martis,  ra* 
diis  crnatum,  maxima  religione  celebrant,  Neton  vo-» 
Mantes.  Macrob.  Sat.  1,  i.  c,  19. 

P  Above,  p,  42. 

<!    P.  3;. 

r  Srrabo,  1.  3.  p.  232, 


in  barbarous  Nations.  103 

pie  was  erefted  at  Gades,  or  Cadiz,  both 
to  the  Egyptian  and  Theban  Hercules, 
but  no  ftatues  s,  as  we  learn  from  Phi- 
loilratus  '  and  Siliu3  Italicus  u.  Even 
their  god  Pluto  was  probably  no  other 
than  the  foil  of  Chronos  by  Rhea,  fpo- 
ken  of  by  Sanchoniathon  w.  It  is  faid, 
that  Spain  fell  to  the  lot  of  this  prince  % 
and  that  the  Celtes  are  the  remote  de- 
fcendents  of  the  Titans y. 

Let  us  proceed  to  conlider  the  obje£ls 
of  religious  worfhip  in  Gaul.  The  in 
habitants  of  this  country  were  Celtes  Z3 
and  were  called  by  that  name  in  the  time 

8  The  Perfians  and  Germans  alib  are  faid  to  have  had 
no  ftatues  of  the  gods. 

1  Vit.  Apol.  Tyan,  1.  5,  c.  4,  5, 

u  «  Nulla  effigies,  fimulachraque  nota  deorum, 

Majeftate  locum,  et  facro  implevere  timore. 

Silius  Itaiicus,  i.  3. 

w  Apud  Eufeb.  b*p,  Ev.  1.  I.  c,  10.  p.  38.  D. 
See  above,  p,  81.  note0. 

x  See  Ancient  Univerfal  Hift.  v.  6.  b.  I.  ch.  12. 
p.  50. 

y  Callimach.  Hymn,  in  Delum,  v.  170.  et  feq.  Cal- 
limachus  calls  the  Celtes  <n|/iyoj<o*  Ttlqi-E^,  the  late  polie- 
rity  of  the  Titans.  See  Pezron,  b.  ii.  ch.  I. 

?  Plutarch.  Vit.  Camilli,  p.  135.  D. 

H  4  of 


104         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

of  Julius  Caefar*.  This  affords  reafon- 
able  ground  to  conclude,  that  they  wor- 
fhipped  human  fpirits  as  the  other  Cel 
tic  nations  did.  As  a  farther  proof  of 
this  point,  we  may  obferve,  that  they 
alfo  claimed  to  be  defcended  from  the 
god  Pluto b,  the  Titan c  prince  juft  now 
fpoken  of. 

Much  has  been  faid  in  praife  of  the 
religion  of  the  Druids,  both  in  Gaul 
and  Britain ;  and  attempts  have  been 
made  to  clear  them  from  the  imputation 
not  only  of  human  facrifices,  but  even 
of  polytheifm  and  idolatry,  till  they 
were  conquered  by  the  Romans.  But, 
if  we  can  rely  on  the  moft  authentic  re 
cords  of  antiquity,  the  public  religion, 
which  was  praftifed  under  their  fantfion\ 

a  Qui  ipforum  lingua  Celtae,  noftra  Galli,  appellan- 
tur.  Csefar,  de  B.  G.  init.  —  Their  country  was  fame- 
times  called  Celtogalatia,  or  Celtogallia. 

b  Galli  omnes  ab  Dite  patre  prognatos  pnedicant, 
Cxfar,  B.  G.  1.6.  c.  17. 

c  Anc.  Univ.  Hift.  v.  6.  p.  40. 

d  E§vov  h  ovx.  avsv  A^yi^y.  Strabo,  1.  4*  p.  303.  See 
alfo  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  5.  p.  354.  ed.  WefTeling.  and 
Caefar,  1.  6.  c.  15. 

was 


in  barbarous  Nations.  1 05 

was  not  more  commendable  than  that  of 
other  nations.  The  Gauls  were  ex 
ceedingly  addi6led  to  magic,  divination*, 
and  idolatry,  in  their  moft  horrid  forms : 
witnefs  their  auguries f  from  the  blood 
and  entrails  of  the  creatures  they  facri- 
ficed  to  falfe  gods.  According  both  to 
Diodorus  Siculus 2  and  Strabo*,  men 
were  facrificed  for  the  purpofe  of  divi 
nation,  and  the  omens  were  the  palpi 
tation  of  their  limbs  after  they  were 
ftabbed,  and  the  flowing  of  their  blood. 
This  had  been  their  praftice  from  the 
moft  remote  antiquity  '.  They  appeafed 
their  gods  with  human  viftims,  burn- 

c  Natio  eft  omnis  Gallorum  admodum  dedita  religi- 
onibus.  Caefar,  1.  6.  c.  15.  —  Augurandi  fludio  Galli 
praeter  caeteros  callent.  Juftin.  1.  24.  c.  4. 

f  In  aufpicia  pugnse  hoflias  casdunt,  quorum  extis, 
&c,  Juftin.  1.  26.  c.  2. 

g  L-5-  P-  354* 
h  V.i.  p.  303. 

Tlc&.cua,  r»y»  xai  TroAf-'^ovtw  wa^aT'j^ff'SU      Diodor»  SlC. 
ubi  i\ipra, 

ing 


io6         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

ing  to  death  men  as  well  as  beafts*. 
We  may  allow,  that  Cicero,  to  ferve  his 
client,  put  the  moft  invidious  conftruc- 
tion  upon  the  conduft  of  the  Gauls  ; 
yet  he  fpeaks  of  their  offering  to  the 
gods  human  victims  in  a  manner  that 
fhews  the  fa£t  could  not  be  denied  \ 
The  teftimony  of  other  writers  is  liable 
to  no  exception.  Casfar,  in  particular, 
had  the  beft  opportunities  of  informa 
tion,  by  his  long  refidence  in  Gaul  ;  and 
he  has  not  only  affirmed  the  fa<5t  in  quef- 
tion,  but  alfo  explained  the  occafions  m 
upon  which  they  offered  human  facri- 

k  Casfar  (1.  6.  €.15.)  fays  :  Alii  immani  magnitu- 
dine  fimulachra  habent,  quorum  contexta  viminibus 
membra  vivis  hominibus  complent,  quibus  fuccenfis, 
circumvent!  flamma  exanimantur  homines.  —  Strabo, 
1.  4.  p.  303.  affirms,  Bocrx^ara  xai  "  '-  oe,v§gu7rt;s 


1  Quis  enim  ignorat  eos  ufque  ad  hanc  diem  retinere 
illam  immanem  ac  barbaram  confuetudinem  hominum 
immolandorum  ?  Orat.  pro  Fonteio. 

ra  Qui  funt  affe&i  gravioribus  morbis,  quique  in  pras- 
liis  periculifque  verfantur,  auc  pro  victimis  homines  im- 
molant,  aut  fe  immolaturos  vovent,  Caeiar,  1.6.  c.  15, 
Compare  Juitin,  1.  6.  c.  2. 

fices, 


in  barbarous  Nations.  107 

fices.  He  tells  us,  that  criminals  were 
the  moft  acceptable  facrifices ;  but  at 
the  fame  time  he  informs  us,  that, 
when  thefe  were  wanting,  the  innocent 
fupplied  their  place " ;  which  is  a  plain 
proof  that  they  fuffered  not  as  viftims 
to  the  order  of  fociety,  but  to  the  ven 
geance  of  the  gods  °.  To  them  they 
alfo  facrificed  their  captives  in  warp. 
In  cafes  of  extraordinary  danger,  they 
ftrove  to  avert  the  divine  wrath  by  the 
flaughter  even  of  their  wives  and  chil 
dren  q.  The  Romans  were  far  from  be 
ing  free  from  the  charge  of  offering  hu- 

n  Supplicia  eorum,  qui  in  furto,  aut  latrocinio,  aut 
aliqua  noxa,  fmt  comprehenfi,  gratiora  diis  immortali- 
bus  efie  arbitrantur.  Sed,  cum  ejus  generis  copia  de 
ficit,  etiam  ad  innocentium  fupplicia  deicendunt.  Cas- 
far,  1.  6.  0.15.  —  Compare  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.5. 
p.  355.  ed.  WeHding. 

0  Quod  pro  vita  hominis,  nifi  vita  hominis  reddatur, 
non  poiTe  aliter  deorum  immortalium  numen  placari  ar 
bitrantur.     Caifar,  1.6.  0.15. 

P  Xguvrui  ^s  roiq  a^jw.aA&rcK  ^?  tf^ffo^  .yrgos  TU,$  rav  Beuv 
<t\pct,<i*  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5.  p.  355. 

1  Sperantes  deorum  minas  expiari  casde  fuorum  pofie, 
ponjuges  et  liberos  fuos  trucidant.    Juftin.  1.  26.  c.  2. 

man 


io8         Worjhip  cf  human  Spirits 

man  facrifices ;  neverthelefs  they  were 
{hocked  at  the  far  greater  excefs  to 
which  this  praftice  was  carried  by  the 
Gauls r ;  amongft  whom  it  in  fome  mea- 
fure  remained,  even  after  various  Ro 
man  edifts  were  patted  to  reftrain  and 
abolifh  it s.  This  is  a  plain  proof,  that 
this  rite  of  worfhip  had  taken  deep  root 
amongft  the  Gauls  ;  and  that  their  re 
ligion  was  not  corrupted,  but  reformed, 
by  the  Romans.  Now,  if  the  Gauls 
offered  human  facrifices,  we  may  from 
hence  infer,  that  thofe  gods  were  war- 

r  Religio  apud  Gallos  dir<e  immanitatis.  See  the 
next  note. 

8  The  fuperflition  of  the  Druids,  which  the  Roman 
citizens  were  forbidden  to  pra&ife  by  Auguftus,  Clau 
dius  attempted  wholly  to  abolifh.  Druidarum  religi- 
onem  apud  Gallos  dirae  immanitatis,  et  tantum  civibus 
fub  Augufto  interdiclum,  penitus  abolevit.  Suetonius, 
Vit.  Claudii  Casfaris,  c.  25.  See  Pliny,  1.  30.  c.  i. 
concerning  what  was  done  againft  the  Druids  by  Tibe 
rius.  Strabo  takes  notice  of  the  Romans  drawing  off 
the  Gauls  both  from  their  cruel  facrifices  and  divina 
tions.  Dr.  Borlafe  (Antiquities  of  Cornwall,  p.  154.) 
has  fhewn,  that  their  fondnefs  for  human  victims  con 
tinued  even  after  their  conv7erfion  to  Chriftianity. 

riors 


in  barbarous  Nations.  109 

riors  and  heroes ;  as  will  be  fliewn  in 
the  fequel. 

Other  proofs  of  this  point  are  not 
wanting.  I  fay  nothing  of  their  tem 
ples,  mentioned  by  Suetonius  and  Stra- 
bo  5  though  (whether  they  were  edi 
fices,  or,  as  fome  fuppofe,  only  confe- 
crated  woods  and  groves)  they  were  pro 
bably  the  fepulchres  of  their  gods.  The 
Jlatues  and  images '  of  their  divinities  af 
ford  more  certain  evidence  that  thofe 
divinities  had  been  men. 

That  feveral  of  them  were  of  human 
extraft,  we  {hall  fee  no  ground  to  doubt, 
if  we  proceed  to  a  diftinft  examination 
of  them.  Such  unqueftionably  was 
Hercules,  whom  the  Gauls  worfhipped 
on  account  of  his  being  the  firft  who 
furmounted  the  difficulties  of  paffing  the 
Alps u,  which  had  been  deemed  infupe- 

rable. 

*  Immani  magnitudine   fimulachra   habent.     C;efar, 
1.6.  c.  15. 

u    Gejis   afpera,  audax,  bellicofa,    qua:   prima   poft 
Herculem,  cui  ea  res  virtutis  admirationem,  et  immor- 

talitatis 


i  jo         Wwjhip  of  human  Spirits 

table.  Their  Apollo,  or  Belenusy  was  the 
tutelary  god  of  Noricum  w,  and  born,  it 
is  probable,  in  Aquileia x  -9  from  whence 
his  worfhip  was  brought  into  Gaul. 
Thefe  inftances  of  the  worfhip  of  human 
fpirits  cannot  be  difputed.  Nor  do  I  fee 
any  reafonable  ground  to  doubt  concern 
ing  thofe  that  follow.  The  Jupiter,  or 
Tharanis,  of  the  Gauls,  according  to 
Caefar's  y  account  of  him,  anfwers  to  the 
Thor  of  the  Goths,  the  prefident  of  the 
air,  and  ruler  of  thunder z.  To  him  hu- 

talitatis  fidem,  dedit,  Alpium  invifta  juga,  et  frigore 
intra&abilia  loca,  tranfcendit.  Juftin.  1.  24.  c.  4.  — 
Eft  locus  Herculeis  aris  facer,  fays  Petronius  Arbiter, 
when  fpeaking  of  the  place  from  whence  Hercules 
crofTed  the  Alps. 

w  Above,  p.  98.  note  {. 

*  He  is  fpoken  of  as  the  ETT^W^O;  &o;  of  the  Aqm- 
leians,  who  called  him  Belis  :  Be^i*  &  y.aXa^-i  T*TO*,  • 
Afl-otawi/a  wou  £^AO*TIJ.  Herodian.  Hift.  1.  8.  c.  7. 
£.,271.  ed.  Oxon.  1704.  Hence  it  appears,  that  Belis 
could  not  be  the  fun,  as  fome  affirm.  As  to  Apollo, 
fee  above,  p.  27.  note  z. 

y  Jovem  imperium  coeleftium  tenere.  Caefar.  L  6* 
c.  16. 

2  Above,  p.  36. 

man 


in  barbarous  Nations.  in 

man  facrifices a  were  offered.  The  cha- 
rafter  given  of  Mars,  by  the  fame  illuf- 
trious  writer b,  correfponds  to  that  of  the 
northern  Odhenc.  To  this  martial  hero 
the  firft  invention  of  armour  is  afcribedd$ 
and  to  him  captives  in  war  were  facrifi- 
ced  *.  He  is  thought  to  be  the  fame  with 
Hefus,  who  was  appeafed  with  human 
victims f.  The  god,  whom  both  the 
Gauls  and  Germans  principally  wor- 
fhipped,  was  Mercury g.  That  the  Her 
mes  or  Mercury  of  Europe  was  the  fame 
with  the  Thoth  or  Thoyth  of  Egypt, 

*  Below,  note  f. 

k  Martem  bella  regerek    Csefar,  1.  6.  c.  16. 

c  Above,  p.  35. 

d  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5.  c.  235. 

*  Csefar,  1.  6.  c.  16. 

f   Et  quibus  immitis  placatur  fanguine  diro 
Teutates,  horrenfque  feris  altaribus  Hefus, 
Et  Taranis  Scythicae  non  mitior  ara  Dians. 

Lucan.  1.  i.  v.  444. 

Ladantius   fays,   (1.  i.  21.)    Galli  Hefum  atque  Theu- 
taten  humano  cruore  placabant. 

«  Concerning  the  Gauls^  Caefar  (1.6.  c.  16.)  fays, 
Deum  maxime  Mercnrium  colunt.  —  Tacitus  gives  the 
fame  account  of  the  Germans  :  Deorum  maxime  Mer- 
curium  colunt*  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9. 

appears 


H2         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

appears  from  the  teftimonies  of  Philo 
Byblius  \  Plato  ',  Cicero  k,  and  Ser- 
vius l.  He  inftru6led  Gaul  and  Egypt 
in  arts  and  commerce  m.  From  his  be 
ing  joined  by  the  Germans  with  Mars B, 
it  feems  as  if  he  was  fometimes  worfhip- 
ped  under  a  military  charafter.  Per 
haps  they  afcribed  their  victories  to  Mer 
cury  when  they  were  gained  by  genius 
and  ftratagem,  and  to  Mars  when  they 
prevailed  by  open  valour.  His  military 

h  Ap.  Eufeb.  Prasp.  Ev.  1.  i.  c.  9.  p.  31. 

*  In  Phaedro,  p.  274.     In  Philebo,  p.  18.  ed.  Serrani. 

k  See  note  m  below. 

J  In  ./En.  iv.  577. 

m  Mercurius  dicitur  Argum  interemifle,  ob  eamque 
caufam  in  Egyptum  profugifTe,  atque  ^Egyptiis  leges  et 
literas  tradidiffe.  Hunc  ^gyptii  Thoth.  appellant. 
Cicero,  de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  22.  —  Hunc  (fell.  Mer- 
curium)  omnium  artium  inventorem  fcrunt.  — — • 
Hunc  ad  quaeftus  pecunize  mercaturafque  habere  vim 
maximam  arbitrantur.  Cafar,  1.  6.  c.  16.  —  Arnobius 
fpeaks  to  the  fame  purpofe,  I.  4.  p.  170.  —  Tertullian 
(de  Coron.  mil.  c.  8.)  fays,  Mercurius  literas  enarravit 
neceflarias,  et  commercii  rebus,  et  noftris  erga  deum 
iludiis. 

n  Diverfam  aciem  Marti  et  Mercuric  facravere.  Ta 
cit.  Annal.  1.  13.  c.  57. 

charadler 


in  barbarous  Nations*  113 

cliarafler  accounts  for  his  being  appeafed 
with  human  blood  °.  He  is  fuppofed  to 
be  the  fame  with  the  cruel  Teutates  % 
the  Phenician  Taut  or  Thaut.  His  fe- 
pulchre  was  fhewn  at  Hermapolis  q. 

The  forementioned  gods  were  wor- 
fhipped  by  the  Gauls,  long  before  their 
conqueft  by  the  Romans,  After  this 
period,  it  is  well  known,  they  dedicated 
temples,  and  raifed  altars,  to  the  Ro 
man  emperors  >  and  adopted  all  the  gods 
of  their  conquerors.  Nor  is  there  any 
reafon  to  fuppofe,  that  this  was  the  ef~ 
fe6l  of  mere  complaifance  ;  becaufe  it 
was  agreeable  to  the  principles  of  the 
heathen  religion.  And  we  have  feen, 
that  they  adhered  to  thofe  principles,  in 
oppofition  to  the  Roman  authority,  even 
in  a  cafe  in  which  they  were  moft  re 
pugnant  to  the  cleareft  dictates  of  rea~ 

•  Tacit.  Mor.  German,  c.  9.     Oomp.  Annal.  1.  13, 
€.57, 

P  Mentioned  above,  no-te  f. 

*  Clement,  recogn.  apud  Patres  apofiol.  v.  i.  p.  594. 
ed.  Clerici.     See  alfo  what  is  faid  concerning  Mercury, 
chap.  II.  under  the  article,  Pheniciansi 

I  fori 


H4         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

fon  and  humanity :  I  refer  to  the  bloody 
cuftom  of  offering  to  their  gods  human 
vi£tims.  I  cannot  forbear  adding,  that, 
inafmuch  as  it  is  generally  allowed  that 
the  Gauls  and  Germans  had  the  fame 
objects  of  worfhip,  the  diftincl  accounts 
given  of  the  gods  of  both  mutually  il- 
luftrate  and  confirm  each  other. 

Now,  if,  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Gaul, 
Germany,  and  the  more  northern  na 
tions  of  Europe,  human  fpirits  were 
deified,  what  reafon  is  there  to  believe, 
that  the  other  nations  of  Europe  had 
not  the  fame  objects  of  worfhip  ?  Many 
of  them  were  peopled  by  the  Celtesr. 
This  was  the  cafe  as  to  Britain  in  parti 
cular.  And  was  the  religion  of  Britain 
different  from  that  of  Gaul  ?  The  very 
contrary  is  allowed  to  be  true ;  nor  could 
it  be  otherwife,  becaufe  both  religions 
had  their  rife  from  the  ancient  idolatry 
of  the  Eaft.  The  difcipline  of  the  Dru 
ids  was  common  both  to  Gaul  and  Bri- 

r  See  above,  p.  100.  note  '. 

tain. 


in  barbarous  Nations.  1 1 5 

tain s.  The  facrifices  and  arts  of  divi 
nation  in  both  countries  were  the  fame  : 
for  the  Britifh.  Druids  took  their  omens 
from  human  victims,  as  we  have  feen 
the  Gaulifh  did  *.  Indeed,  it  would  be 
eafy  to  produce  diftin<5t  proofs  of  the 
cuftom  of  human  facrifices  in  moft  na 
tions  of  the  world  %  and  of  Europe  in 
particular ;  which  is  itfelf  evidence  fuf- 
ficient  of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 
in  thofe  nations.  As  to  the  fouthern 

*  Difciplina    (fell.   Druidum)  in  Britannia  reperta, 
atque  inde  in  Galliam  tranflata  effe  exiftimatur.   Csefar, 

1.6.    C.    12. 

I  Tacitus,  {peaking  of  the  inhabitants  of  Anglefey, 
a  Britifh    ifland,    fays  :     Pnefidium    poflhac  impofitum 
vi&is,  excifique  luci,  fevis  fuperlHtionibus  facri  :    nam 
cruore  captivo  adolere  aras,  et  hominum  fibris  confulere 

deos,  fas  habebant.     Tacit.    Annal.  1.  14.  c.  20. 

From  the  foregoing  obfervations  it  appears,  that  Origen 
(on  Ezek.  iv.)  was  miftaken  when  he  faid,    (or  rather, 
that  he  is  mifmterpretcd    when  he  is  reprefented  as  fay 
ing,)  that   the   Druids    taught  the  Britons  to  believe 
there  is  but  one  God.      They  probably  acknowledged, 
as  the  other  heathen  nation's  did,  one  God  who  was  fa- 
perior  to  the  reft,  or  a  fupreme  deity. 

II  Ida   toto    mundo    confenfere,  quamquam  difcordi, 
et  fibi  ignoto.     Pliny,  1.  30.  c.  i. 

I  2  parts 


1 1 6         WorJInp  of  human  Spirits 

parts  of  Italy,  Greece,  and  the  eaftern 
iflands  of  Europe,  if  they  were  not  peo 
pled  by  the  Celtes,  they  were  by  the  Sy 
rians  w  $  and  they  derived  their  religion 
from  them  and  the  Egyptians,  whofe 
gods  will  be  confidered  in  the  next  chap 
ter.  As  to  the  Macedonians,  the  name 
of  one  of  their  mortal  deities  is  pre- 
ferved  by  Tertullian r,  in  a  paflage  which 
will  be  cited  when  I  come  to  fpeak  of 
Cilicia  in  Afia,  Juftin  fays,  that  the 
temple  of  Jupiter  (of  whom  enough  has 
been  faid  already)  was Y  held  in  high  ve 
neration  from  the  moft  remote  anti 
quity. 

I  cannot  forbear  taking  particular  no 
tice  of  the  T'hracians,  whom  Herodotus z 
calls  the  great  eft  nation  of  any  amongfl  men, 
except  the  Indians.  By  fome  they  are 
reckoned  amongfl  the  Scythians ;  and  it 
is  certain  that,  like  them,  they  were 

w  See  above,  p.  101.  note"1. 

*  De  Anima,  c.  46. 

y  Veterrimse  Macedonum  rellgionis.      Juftin.  1.  24. 

C.  2. 

-  L,  5.  c.3* 

worfluppers 


in  barbarous  Nations.  117 

v/orfliippers  of  Zamolxis.  Proofs  of 
this  point  were  adduced  above  a  ;  one  of 
which  was  'the  teflimony  of  a  Thracian 
in  Plato.  I  will  here  add  a  paflage  from 
Lucian  b  :  The  Thracians  facrifice  to  Za- 
molxis^  a  fugitive  from  Samosy  who  came 
to  reftde  amongjl  them.  Beiides  their  great 
legiflator,  they  deified  Orpheus,  and  alfo 
Odryfus,  (the  founder  of  the  nation,  at 
leaft  of  a  part  of  it,)  and  others',  ac 
cording  to  the  teflimony  of  Tertullian 
and  Epiphanius.  But,  waving  the  au 
thority  of  Chriftian  writers,  as  not  be 
ing  immediately  to  our  prefent  purpofe, 
I  add,  that  the  paffage  in  which  Hero 
dotus  d  is  fuppofed  to  fay,  cc  the  Thra- 
"  cians  worshipped  only  Mars,  Bac- 
"  chus,  and  Diana,"  may  only  import, 

*  P.  32.     Compare  p.  27,  28. 
b  Jupiter  Tragoed.  torn.  2.  p,  152. 
c  Tertullian.  de  Anima,  c.  2.      Photii  Bibliotheca, 
XLV.      Epiphanius,  1.  i.  p.  8. 

' 


ea,   KCH  Aiwuo'ov,   KXL 

Herodot.  1.  5.  0.7.       Compare   the   paflage 
from  Herodotus,  cited  p.  65.  note  Ir. 


I  3  that 


1 1 8          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

that  thefe  were  their  principal  gods. 
They  might  be  the  only  gods  worfhip- 
ped  by  all  the  different  nations  of 
Thrace,  or  the  only  gods  they  had  in 
common  with  other  nations.  He  could 
not  mean,  that  no  other  gods  but  thefe 
were  worfhipped  by  any  of  the  people  of 
Thrace  -,  for  he  knew  that  Zamolxis  was 
acknowledged  as  a  god  by  the  Getes,  a 
people  of  this  country e :  and  he  alfo  in 
forms  us,  that  the  Thracians  of  Abfyn- 
thus  facrificed  a  Perfian  to  Pleftorus,  a 
god  of  the  country,  according  to  their 
cuftom  f.  Much  lefs  did  Herodotus 
mean,  that  the  Thracians  acknowledged 
only  the  natural  gods  ;  for  we  learn 
from  him,  that  Bacchus  was  educated 
in  Arabia g.  He  alfo  informs  us,  that 
the  Thracians  in  Afia  had,  in  their  coun 
try  h>  an  oracle  of  Mars,  who  was  cer- 

e  Above,  p.  32. 
f  Herodot.  1.  9.  c.  ji8. 
F  Above,  p.  85.  note  n. 
h  L.;.  0.76. 

tainly 


in  barbarous  Nations.  119 

tainly  a  Thracian  '\  His  fepulchre  was 
fhewn  in  Thrace,  according  to  Clemens 
Romanus,  who  makes  mention  of  many 
other  heathen  gods  whofe  fepulchres 
were  well  known k.  Each  nation  of 
Thrace  feems  to  have  had  it's  own  pe 
culiar  divinity  -,  and  their  kings  prided 
themfelves  in  their  relation  to  Hermes : 
for  Herodotus !,  to  the  pafTage  cited  from 
him  above,  fubjoins  the  following  de 
claration  :  Their  kings  >  befides  the  national 
deities,  adore  Hermes  with  greater  devotion 
than  their  other  gods^  fwear  by  him  alone , 
and  claim  to  be  defcended  from  him  m.  Ha 
ving  given  ample  fpecimens  of  the  wor- 
fhip  of  human  fpirits  in  the  different 
nations  of  Europe, 

III.  Let  us  proceed  to  Afta* 

That  dead  men  were   deified  in  many 
parts  of  this  vaft  continent,  particularly 

1  Virgil  calls  Thrace,  Rhefi  Mavortia  tellus.  Georg. 
IV.  462. 

k  Clemens,  Recogn.  1.  10.  c.  24.  torn.  i.  p.  594. 
ed.  Clerici. 

'  L.  5.  c.7. 

m  Concerning  Mercury,  fee  p.  in. 

I  4  in 


I2O         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

in  Arabia,  Perfia,  and  the  boundlefs  re 
gions  called  Scythia,  has  been  already 
fhewn.  The  fame  will  be  proved  con 
cerning  feveral  other  great  nations  of 
Afia  in  the  next  chapter,  when  the  ob- 
je£ls  of  worfhip  amongft  the  people  po- 
lifhed  by  learning  come  under  confidera- 
tion.  But,  befides  the  nations  which 
will  be  there  fpoken  of,  and  thofe  al 
ready  fpecified,  there  were  many  others 
in  which  human  fpirits  were  worfhip- 
ped.  It  would  be  endlefs  to  recount  all 
the  rude  and  barbarous  people  who  ac 
knowledged  fuch  gods  as  thefe.  The 
mention  of  fome  of  the  moft  confidera- 
ble  will  ferve  as  proper  famples  of  the 
reft. 

In  Sarrnatia  Afiatica n,  near  the  Palus 
Maeotis,  the  hero  Achilles  was  deified. 
In  Colchis  there  was  a  temple  and  grove 
dedicated  to  Phrixus  °.  Medea  was  ef- 
feemed  a  godciefs  in  the  fame  place,  as 

n  Strabo,  1.  1 1.  p.  756. 

•  Hie  Phrixi  templum  et  lucus.     Mela,  1.  i.  c.  21, 

Athenagoras 


in  barbarous  Nations*  121 

Athenagoras  p  affirms  upon  the  authority 
of  Alcman  and  Hefiod.  Athenagoras, 
in  his  learned  apology  for  the  Chriftians, 
infifts  largely  upon  this  topic,  that  the 
Heathens,  as  appeared  from  their  own 
records,  or  from  fa£ls  of  the  greateft 
notoriety,  worfhipped  gods  that  had 
once  been  men  and  women.  He  men 
tions  by  name  many  fuch,  (which  I  pafs 
over,)  and  fays,  the  time  would  fail 
him  to  enumerate  all  the  reft  q.  I  could 
not  omit  his  teftimony  in  this  place,  be- 
caufe  it  is  confirmed  by  the  Heathens 
themfelves.  —  To  return.  Protefilaus 
was  worfhipped  in  Abydena  r  ;  Autoly- 
cus  at  Sinope  in  Paphlagonia,  where  he 
had  an  oracle  s  ;  and  Iphigenia  by  the  in 
habitants  of  Taurus  '  ;  Heftor  and  He- 

P  Legat.  pro  Chriftian.  p.  51,  52.    Oxon.   1706. 

TO  wA'/jSoj  KaTaXsyovra.    Athenag. 


p.  52. 

*  Sunt  Protefilai  oiTa  confecrato  delubro,    Mela,  1.  3. 

C.  2. 

s  Strabo,  1.  12.  p.  822. 

*  Herodot.  1.  4.  c,  103. 

lena 


122         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

lena  at  Ilium  in  Phrygia u ;  Sarpedonw, 
Cybele,  and  Attis,  at  Troas  x  ;  Achilles 
at  Sigseum Y j  and,  at  Smyrna,  Homer7'. 
Divine  honours  were  paid  to  Alabandus 
in  Caria a ;  to  Pandarus  in  Lycia b ;  to 
Niobe c  and  Mopfus d  in  Cilicia ;  to  Ac- 
mon  c  in  Cappadocia ;  in  Pontus  to  Pa- 
troclus f ;  in  Armenia  to  Tanais  or  A- 

u  Athenag.  Legat.  p.  50. 
w  Pliny,  1.  13.  c.  13. 

*  See  the  hiftory  of  Cybele,  in  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  3. 
c.  30. 

y  Strabo,  1.  13.  p.  891. 

z  Id.  1.  14.  p.  956.  I  omit  moft  of  the  Grecian  co 
lonies  in  Afia,  becaufe  they  do  not  fall  under  the  de- 
fcription  of  Barbarians,  and  becaufe  there  can  be  no 
doubt  about  their  having  the  fame  objecls  of  worihip  as 
Greece  ;  which  will  be  confidered  in  the  next  chapter. 

3  Cicero,  de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  15,   19. 

b  Strabo,  1.  14.  p.  981. 

c  Athenag.  Legat.  p.  52. 

d  Nam  et  oraculis  hoc  genus  ftipatys  eft  orbis  ;  ut 
Amphiarai  apud  Oropum,  Amphilochi  apud  Mallum, 
Sarpedonis  in  Troade,  Trophonii  in  Bceotia,  Mopfi  in 
Cilicia,  Hermiones  in  Macedonia,  Pafiphaes  in  Laco- 
nica.  Tertullian.  de  Anima,  c.  46. 

e  Stephan.  Byzant.   in  voc.  Acmon. 
f  Clement.  Recog.  1.  10.  c.  25. 

naitis  ^ 


in  barbarous  Nations.  123 

naitis E ;  and  in  Media  to  Hephaeftion h. 
The  haughty  monarchs  of  Parthia  were 
filled  the  brothers  of  the  fun  and  moon,  and 
were  believed  to  mingle  with  the  ftars  at 
death  *.  As  the  Parthians  were  fubje<5t, 
firft  to  the  Medes,  and  afterwards  to  the 
Perfians  ;  and  there  was  an  intercourfe 
and  alliance  between  the  two  latter ;  it 
is  very  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  the 
religion  of  thefe  three  nations  was  very 
much  the  fame  k :  which  confirms  what 
was  obferved  above,  concerning  the  gods 
of  Perfia  being  the  fame  with  thofe  of 
the  furrounding  nations  j  that  is,  both 
celeftial  and  terreftrial. 

If,  from  Perfia,  we  go  into  the  re 
moter  regions  of  Afia,  we  (hall  find  that 
the  cuftom  of  deifying  human  fpirits 

8  Strabo,  1.  n.  p.  805.  —  See  above,  p.  70. 

h  Compare  Quint.  Curt.  1.  10.  c.  4.  Juftin.  1.  12. 
c.  12.  and  Plutarch,  in  Alexandro.  —  The  Medes  wor- 
fhipped  their  kings  while  living.  Strabo,  1.  xi.  p.  797. 

1  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  1.  23.  c.  6.  See  alfo 
Martial,  Ep.  72. 

k  Strabo  fays,  (1.  n.  p.  805.)  that  both  the  Medes 
and  Armenians  obferve  the  Perfian  rites  of  worfhip. 

prevailed 


1 24         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

prevailed  there  from  the  earlieft  ages : 
for  Ammon  and  Bacchus  were  worfhip- 
ped  in  India !.  Diodorus  Siculus  m  makes 
the  Indian  Bacchus  the  moft  ancient  of 
all  thofe  who  bore  that  name.  He  went 
from  Affyria  into  India,  according  to 
the  account  given  by  fome  of  the  Indians 
to  Apollonius  n.  One  reafon  affigned, 
by  the  Pendets  of  Indoftan,  for  worfhip- 
ping  brute-animals,  is,  their  being  fup- 
pofed  to  contain  in  them  the  fouls  of  de 
parted  heroes  °.  And  a  modern  voyager p 
to  the  Indies  allures  us,  that  the  Hea 
thens  adore  their  god  Ram,  though  the 

1  Concerning  Bacchus  and  Ammon,  fee  above, 
p.  85.  note  °. 

ra  L.  3.  p.  232.  ed.  WefTeling. 

*  Philoftrat.  Vit.  Apollon.  Tyan.  1.2.  c.  9.  p.  57, 

0  Bernier's  Memoirs,  torn.  3.  p.  154,   155,   156. 

P  Thevenot,  Voyages  des  Jndes,  part.  3.  liv.  I. 
c.  38.  Quand  un  Chretien  leur  parle  de  leur  dieu  Ram 
que  les  Gentils  adorent,  ils  ne  foutiennent  point  qu'il 
eft  Dieu,  et  difent  feulement  que  c'etoit  un  grand  roi, 
dont  la  faintete  et  le  fecour  qu'il  a  donne  aux  hommes 
lui  ont  acquis  une  communication  plur.  particuliere  avec 
Dieu  qu'autres  faints,  et  qu'ainfi  ils  lui  portent  beau- 
coup  plus  de  refpeft. 

Brachmans. 

«  * 


in  barbarous  Nations. 

Brachmans,  in  their  converfation  with 
Chriftians,  pretend  that  they  only  ho 
nour  him  with  fingular  refpeft  as  a 
great  q  monarch,  whofe  extraordinary 
virtues  and  merit  towards  mankind  give 
him  a  peculiar  intereft  in  the  favour  of 
the  Deity.  The  moft  ancient  of  all 
their  gods  was  Perambramman,  who 
was  worfhipped  together  with  his  three 
fons r.  To  many  other  men  they  paid 
divine  honours s,  and  ufed  libations,  fa* 
crifices,  and  various  other  rites,  to  ex 
piate  the  manes  of  the  dead '.  Accord- 

*  That  is,  I  fuppofe,  with  a  civil  refpeft  :  an  excufe 
like  this  was  made  for  the  Perfians,  p.  56.  and  for  the 
Chinefe,  p.  41. 

1  Parambramman  nefcio  quern  deorum  antiquiffimum 
colunt,  et  ex  eo  filios  tres.  Peter  MafFeus,  in  his  firit 
book  Hiftoriarum  Indicarum,  p.  55. 

3  Multis  prasterea,  non  hominibus  modo,  fed  brutis 
etiam  animantibus,  cceleftes  habent  honcres,  et  templa 
aedificant.  Id.  ib.  They  paid  extraordinary  devotion 
to  oxen  ;  —  quod  hominum  vita  funflorum  animos  in 
earn  maxime  belluam  immigrare  opinantur.  P.  56. 

1  Sacrificiis,  libationibus,  cseterifque  nefariis  ritibus, 
11  ad  expiandos  mortuorum  manes,  utuntur.  Id.  ib. 


126         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

ing  to  the  editor  of  the  Ezour  Vedam  % 
Budda,  the  moft  celebrated  of  the  Sa- 
manean  do6lors,  who  was  born  near  fe- 
ven  hundred  years  before  Chrift,  was 
honoured  as  a  god,  and  his  doflrine  was 
adopted,  not  only  in  India,  but  alfo  in 
Japan,  China,  Siam,  and  Tartary.  The 
Ezour  Vedam  itfelf  is  faid  to  afTert  the 
unity,  but  confiders  all  the  other  gods 
as  mortals.  Every  one  has  heard  of  the 
extraordinary  devotion  paid  in  Tibet  and 
other  eaftern  nations  to  the  grand  Lama, 
whom  they  regard  as  omnifcient  and 
immortal :  for,  when  he  dies  in  appear 
ance,  they  imagine  he  only  changes  his 
abode,  being  born  again  in  another  bo- 
dy*. 

If,  from  Tibet,  you  proceed  to  China, 
you  will  find,  in  that  vaft  empire,  gods 
taken  from  amongft  mankind.  What 

u  L'Ezour  Vedam,  ou  ancien  commentaire  du  Ve 
dam,  contenant  1'expofition  des  opinions  religieufes  et 
philofophiques  des  Indicns,  par  M.  de  Sainte  Croix. 
Monthly  Review,  appendix  to  vol.  61.  p.  500. 

w  See  Bernier's  Memoirs,  v.  4.  p.  127.  and  Com 
plete  Syftem  of  Geography,  v.  2.  p.  301.  ed.  1747. 

was 


in  barbarous  Nations.  127 

was  only  incidentally  obferved  above  *, 
concerning  the  Chinefe,  cannot  be  o- 
mitted  in  this  place,  to  which  it  pro 
perly  belongs  ;  viz.  that  they  pay  an 
idolatrous  worfhip  to  the  fouls  of  their 
anceftors,  and  honour  Confucius  with 
the  fame  religious  ceremonies  as  they  do 
their  celeftial  and  terreftrial  fpirits. 

At  the  very  extremity  of  the  Eaft,  in 
Japan,  there  are  clear  traces  of  the  fame 
fuperftition.  I  need  not  take  any  parti 
cular  notice  of  their  god  Cambadaxi,  of 
whom  an  account  is  given  by  Cafpar  Vi- 
lela y.  It  is  fufficient  to  obferve,  in  ge 
neral,  concerning  the  Japanefe,  that 
they  deified  their  kings  and  men  of  royal 
birth,  and  thofe  alfo  who  had  diftin- 
guifhed  themfelves  by  ufeful  inventions 
or  any  illuftrious  deeds.  Nay,  (what  is 
very  remarkable,)  the  Japanefe,  at  fuch 
a  diftance  from  Greece  relate  of  thefe 
hero-gods  the  like  abfurd,  ridiculous, 

*p.4i. 

y  In  1.  3.  Epiftolarum  Japonicarum.  Voftl4t1dotfi- 

lot,   p.  Of* 

PyS  and 


128         Wvrjhip  of  human  Spirits 

and  immoral,  flories,  as  the  Greek  po 
ets  fabled  concerning  Jupiter,  Saturn, 
Bacchus,  and  their  other  fi6litious  de 
ities  z.  This  obfervation  may  be  ap 
plied,  in  a  good  meafure,  to  the  Brach- 
mans  of  India a. 

I  fhall  not  trouble  the  reader  here 
with  any  remarks  upon  a  late  writer, 
whofe  learning  allowed  him  to  affirm  b, 
<c  that  divine  honours  were  not  paid  to 
c c  deceafed  heroes  in  the  eaftern  nations  ;" 
though  the  very  contrary  has  been  de- 
monftrated  by  the  moft  numerous  tefti- 
monies.  Two  general  remarks  fhall 
clofe  this  fecVion. 

2  Reges  olim  ipfos,  regumque  filios,  aut  invento  quo- 
piam,  infignive  alio  facinore>  falfse  divinitatis  gloriam 
confequutos.  Horum  de  vita  rebufque  geftis,  uti  de 
Jove,  Saturno,  Libero,  cseterifque  inanibus  diis,  Grasci 
poetae  abfurda  qusedam,  et  ridenda,  et  turpia,  fabu- 
lantur.  MafFei  Hiftor.  Indie.  1.  12.  p.  533.  —  In  the 
ifland  of  Taprobane,  now  called  Ceylon,  Venus  was 
worshipped.  Dionyfii  Periegefis,  v.  592. 

a  Multos  habent  fuarum  fuperftitionufm  libros  > 

quse  nonnihil  ad  veteris  Grascize  fabulas  et  auguralem 
Hetruriae  difciplinam  videntur  accedere.  Ma-ffei  Hiftor. 
Indie.  1. 1.  p.  56, 

^  Fell,  p.  7, 

I.  The 


in  barbarous  Nations.  129 

i.  The  teftimonies,  produced  in  this 
and  the  foregoing  fections,  are  fufficient 
to  fhew,  that  the  worfhip  of  human 
fpirits,  in  the  nations  ftiled  barbarous^ 
was  very  general.  The  known  excep 
tions  are  fo  few,  that  they  fcarcely  deferve 
to  be  mentioned.  Dn  Blackwell  has 
furniflied  us  only  with  one,  if  the  cafe 
of  the  MafTagetes  c  be  indeed  an  excep 
tion*  Having  no  fmifter  defign  to  anf- 
wer,  I  did  not  conceal  from  the  reader 
the  cafe  of  fome  of  the  Libyan  No- 
mades  d,  (overlooked  by  that  learned 
writer,)  who  worshipped  only  the  natu 
ral  gods.  I  now  add,  that  the  fame  has 
been  affirmed  concerning  the  Albani,  a 
people  who  bordered  upon  the  Cafpian 
fea.  But  I  queftion  whether  this  can  be 
inferred  from  the  account  given  of  them 
by  Strabo  e,  who  only  fays  :  *They  ivor/hip 
the  gods  5  the  fun>  and  Jupiter,  and  the 

c  Above,  p.  28.  d  P.  95,  96. 


e 


f.v  ZeAry>/7jv.  Strabo,  l»n.  p.  768, 

K  moon  3 


130         Worfklp  of  human  Spirits 

moon;  principally  the  latter.  Had  this 
accurate  writer,  by  Jupiter,  here  meant 
heaven,  it  would  have  been  more  natu 
ral  for  him  to  have  ufed  the  Greek  term 
that  exprefles  it,  efpecially  in  connexion 
with  two  other  natural  objefts,  the  fun 
and  moon.  By  Jupiter,  therefore,  he 
probably  intended  the  prefident  of  the 
air  :  an  office  which  the  Heathens  af- 
figned  to  a  human  fpirit.  Befides,  Strabo 
does  not  affirm,  that  the  Albanians  wor- 
fhipp.ed  no  other  gods  but  thofe  whom 
he  fpecified.  He  takes  notice,  indeed, 
of  their  fhewing  no  refpe6t  to  the  deadf ; 
but  this  might  be  very  confident  with 
their  worfhipping  fuch  men  as  antiquity 
had  deified.  I  (hall  only  add,  that  if, 
in  fome  nations,  the  natural  gods  alone 
were  acknowledged,  we  have  feen  that 
there  were  others  in  which  they  had  no 
gods  but  deified  men  and  women e.  In 
moft  of  the  nations,  of  which  we  are 
fpeaking,  there  were  both  natural  and 
mortal  gods. 

f  Id.  ib.  s  P.  32,  97. 

2,  The 


in  barbarous  Nations.  131 

2.  The  foregoing  teftimonies  juftify 
the  limited  explication,  given  above h, 
of  a  pafTage  in  Plato,  in  which  he  fays, 
<c  Many  of  the  Barbarians,  in  his  time, 
"  held  only  the  natural  gods."  For 
moft  of  thefe  teftimonies  refer  to  times 
prior  to  thofe  of  this  celebrated  philofo- 
pher.  And  there  will  be  occafion  to 
(hew,  in  the  fequel,  that  the  worihip  of 
human  fpirits  very  generally  prevailed  in 
the  early  ages  of  the  world. 

h  P.  IQ,  note  y.     Compare  Fell,  p,  9. 


K  2  CHAP. 


132         Worjbip  of  human  Spirits 

CHAP.     II. 

Proving^  from  the  teftimonles  of  the 
Heath  ens  ^  that  they  paid  religious 
honours  to  dead  men  in  the  nations 
polified  by  learning. 

A  MONGST  the  nations  which  anf- 
wer  this  defcription,  we  may  reckon 
the  Chaldeans,  Babylonians,  Syrians, 
Phenicians,  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Ro 
mans.  To  thefe  we  muft  add  fuch  Ara 
bians  as  bordered  upon  Judea  and  E- 


It  is  to  the  gods  of  thefe  nations,  of 
fuch  of  them  efpecially  as  were  upon  the 
confines  of  Canaan  *,  that  the  Scriptures 
refer,  when  they  fpeak  of  the  heathen 
deities.  The  knowledge  of  the  gods  of 
thefe  nations,  therefore,  muft  be  highly 
ufeful  to  the  lover  of  facred  literature. 

*  The  Israelites  <v:ent  after  the  Heathen  that  were  round 
about  them.  2  Kings  xvli.  15. 

My 


in  potijhed  Nations.  133 

My  more  immediate  defign  at  prefent 
is  to  fhew,  that,  in  all k  the  fore-men 
tioned  nations,  divine  honours  were  paid 
to  dead  men  and  women. 

SECT.     I. 

T  Shall  begin  with  confidering  the  cafe 
of  the  PHENICIANS  -,  becaufe  the  ac 
count  given  us  of  their  gods  will  be  of 
life  to  us  in  explaining  thofe  of  the  other 
polifhed  nations. 

It  has  been  faid,  with  no  fmall  degree 
of  confidence,  that  tc  there  can  be  no 
<c  doubt  but  that  the  Greeks  themfelves 
"  have  declared,  that  the  Phenicians  ne- 
"  ver  worfhipped  fuch  gods  as  had  been 
<c  men1."  Who  the  Greeks  are,  that 
have  made  this  declaration,  is  a  fecret 
the  gentleman  has  locked  up  in  his  own 
breaftj  or  rather  is  (I  apprehend)  a  great 
fecret  even  to  himfelf.  As  Sanchonia- 

k  The  gods  of  the  Arabs  were  confidered  above,  p.  84. 
'  Ml,  p.  31. 

K  3  thon 


134         V/orJhip  of  human  Spirits 

thon  is   the  author  he   had  laft  men 
tioned,  he  probably  miilook  him  for  a 
Greek  writer.      But  the  hiflory  of  San- 
choniathon  was  written  in  the  Phenician 
language,  as  the  learned  well  know  $  and 
was  only  tranflated  into  Greek  by  Philo 
of  Byblus,     A  part  of  that  tranflation  is 
preferved  by  Eufebius  m.      Philo,  in  his 
preface  to  it,  has  given  us  the  following 
extra£t n  from  his  author ;  introducing  it 
with  a  declaration,  that  it  was  previoufly 
neceflary  to   the  right  understanding  of 
his  hiftory0.     I  fhall  lay  it  before  the 
reader,  not  for  the  fake  of  refuting  the 
gentleman's  unfypported  aflertion,  which 
thofe   acquainted  with    antiquity   muft 
know  to  be  falfe ;  but  becaufe  it  will 

ra  Prep.  Ev.  1.  i. 

n  Whether  the  following  citation  be  Philo's  extraft 
from  Sanchoniathon,  or  the  account  which  Philo  him- 
felf  thought  it  necefiary  to  give  in  order  to  the  right 
underHanding  of  his  author,  is  a  matter  of  no  moment 
It  may  be  referred  indifferently  either  to  the  one  or  the 
other. 

c  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  I.  p.  32.  D. 

throw 


in  polijhed  Nations.  1  3  5 

throw  great  light  upon  the  general  fub- 

jeft. 

Sanchoniathon,    who   is  fuppofed   to 

have  approached  near  to  the  age  of  Mo- 
fes,  writes  as  follows  p.     "  The  moft  an- 
*'  dent  of  the  Barbarians,    efpecially  the 
<f  Phenicians  and  Egyptians,  from  whom 
other  people  derived  this  citjlom,  accounted 
thofe  the  GREATEST  GO  DS\  'who 
had  found  out  things  moft  neceffary  and 
ufeful  in  life,  and  had  been  benefactors  to 
mankind.       Thefe    they    ivorfhipped    as 
gods  r  ;  and,  applying  their  temples  to  this 
ufe,  they  confecrated  to  their  names  pil- 
"  lars  andjlatues  of  'wood,  which  the  Phe- 
"  nicians  held  in  high  veneration  y  and  in- 
xc  Jlituted  the  moft  folemn  feftivals  in  their 
*c  honour.     More  efpecially   did  they  give 
*c  the  names  of  their  kings  to  the  mundane 
>"  element  s^  and  to  other  things   to  which 
"  they  attributed  divinity.      For  phyiical 
"  beings  alone,  fuch  as  the  fun,  moon, 
"  planets,  and  elements,  and  things  of 

P  Id.  p.  32,  33.  9  0i  «( 


£C 


K  4  "  the 


136         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 

c£  the  fame  kind,  did  they  acknowledge 
cc  to  be  ftri&ly  and  properly  gods5. 
cc  So  that  feme  of  their  gods  were  MOR- 
cc  TAL,  and  others  IMMORTAL':' 

That  part  of  this  citation  from  San- 
choniathon,  or  Philo  Byblius,  here  print 
ed  in  Roman  characters,  was  given  in 
the  DiiTertation  on  Miracles";  as  was 
alfo  fo  much  of  the  other  part  w,  here 
diftinguifhed  by  Italics,  as  was  neceffary 
to  fhew,  that  the  Phenicians  and  other 
ancient  nations  worshipped  fuch  men 
as  had  been  benefaftors  to  the  human 
race.  Neverthelefs  Mr.  Fell  x,  (incre 
dible  as  it  may  feem!)  fuppreffing  that 
part  of  it  which  afierts  the  deification  of 
men,  (though  he  quotes  the  words  that 

8  Some   render,    ^y<rtxa$  &  yhiov  y.cn  o-ihyvw  ••.  -  i  "  ^ty^ 
tywoo-xov,   "  but  the  fun,  moon,  and  planets,  and 


"  other  things  like  thefe,  they  acknowledged  as  the 
"  only  phyjical  or  natural  gods."  But  Eufebius  him- 
felf,  p.  28.  A,  after  enumerating  the  fame  phyfical 
gods  of  the  Phenicians,  fays,  that  their  frjl  naturalijls 
Sc4,'$  pwov  tyivuc-ziv,  acknowledged  thefe  alone  to  be  gods. 

r  fir   av-rou;  TXq  (AW  Sy/iTtiq,   Ttfj  ^£  a^avara?,  S=y$  stvat. 

u  P.  173.  note  f,    p.  179.  note  '.  w  P.  187. 

?  P.  30,  31, 

immediately 


In  polijhed  Nations.  137 

immediately  precede  it  y,)  and  fetting  be 
fore  his  readers  that  part  only  which  re 
lates  to  the  natural  gods,  reprefents  the 
latter  as  fuch  a  contradiction  to  my  af- 
fertions  refpeCting  the  more  immediate 
objeCts  of  heathen  worfhip,  that  he  pro- 
fefTes  to  be  at  a  lofs  what  apology  to  make 
for  me,  and  defcribes  me  as  a  perfon  with 
whom  it  is  in  vain  to  reafon.  Can  this 
writer  make  any  apology  for  his  own 
conduCt  ?  He  felfely  charges  me  with 
grofs  felf- contradiction,  in  a  cafe  in 
which  there  would  not  have  appeared 
even  a  fhadow  of  it,  had  he  had  the  ho- 
iiefty  to  lay  before  his  readers  both  the 
extracts  from  Philo  Byblius  ;  which,  ta 
ken  together,  inftead  of  contradicting, 
do  in  the  fulleil  manner  eftablifh,  what 
I  had  aflerted  concerning  the  heathen 
gods.  I  appeal  to  every  candid  reader. 

Is  it  not.  evident,  from  the  foregoing 
teftirnony  of  Sanchoniathon,  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Phenicians,  particu- 

/  Comp.  Differt.  on  Mir.  p.  187.     Fell,  p.  31. 

Jarly 


138         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

larly  of  their  firft  naturalifts  z,  phyfical 
beings  were  the  only  gods  ;  that  is,  in 
their  own  natural  right a  ?  And  is  it  not 
equally  evident,  from  the  fame  teftimony, 
that  the  Phenicians  worfhipped  human 
fpirits  as  godsy  even  as  their  greateft  gods, 
and  with  the  moft  folemn  devotion  ? 
To  thefe  their  worlhip  was  more  imme 
diately  direfted,  in  their  public  temples ; 
and,  from  thefe,  their  natural  gods  re 
ceived  their  denomination.  So  that  the 
worfhip  of  the  latter  muft  in  a  manner 
have  been  abforbed  in  that  of  the  former, 
or  both  were  worfhipped  together.  He 
alone  who  was  capable  of  appealing  to 
Herodotus,  to  vouch  for  a  fact  which 
that  hiftorian  contradifts,  could  be  bold 
enough  to  tell  the  world,  that  the  tefti 
mony  of  Sanchoniathon  was  a  contra^ 
di£tion  to  my  aflertions,  when  that  tef^ 
tirnony  does,  in  the  cleared  terms,  con-* 
firm  my  opinion,  and  confute  his.  Had 

2  O;  9T£«Tot  pt;<rixoi,  x.  T.  X.   Eufeb.  P.  Ev.  1.  I .  p.  38.  A, 
*  Compare  what  is  obferved  above,  from  Mr.  Sale, 
concerning  the  Arabians,  p.  87. 

he 


in  polified  Nations.  139 

he  not  been  an  entire  ft  ranger  to  San- 
choniathon,  he  muft  have  known  that 
his  hiftory  was  written  with  the  exprefs 
defign  of  fhewing,  that,  though  the 
parts  and  elements  of  the  world  were 
the  original  gods  of  the  Phenicians  and 
other  nations,  yet  that  the  public  devo 
tion  was  direftly  addreffed  to  deified 
men  and  women  b.  And  Eufebius  tefti- 
fies,  that,  even  to  his  time,  thefe  were 
the  gods  worshipped  by  all  people  -,  and  in 
all  cities  and  countries  c. 

Mr.  Fell  affirms  d,  <Tbefe  (the  fun, 
moon,  and  the  other  natural  gods)  were 
the  Cabiriy  or  mighty  gods  of  the  eajlern 
nations.  The  gentleman  here,  as  on 
other  occafions,  follows  Dr.  Blackwell  '. 
But  the  learned  doftor's  authority  is  of 
no  weight,  in  a  cafe  of  this  kind,  againft 
the  teftimony  of  the  ancients.  The  Ca- 

^  See  Sanchoniathon,  apud  Eufeh.  P.  Ev.  I.  I.  paf- 
Hm,  or  Eufebius's  fliort  account  of  him,  p.  31.  C. 


Ty$   £ia£T*  xai  vvv  $£«$    Ttot^oe,  TOI; 
cq  TxcAetc  xai  T«$  %^^c.     Id.   ib. 

P.  10.  «  Mythol.  p.  277. 

bin, 


140         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

biri,  or  potent  gods  of  the  Phenicians, 
were,  according  to  Sanchoniathon,  eight 
in  number,  and  no  other  than  men  dei 
fied  after  death.  From  Sydic  defcended 
the  Diofcuri,  or  Cabiri>  or  Corybantesy  or 
Samothracian  deities  f.  Thefe,  he  adds, 
firjl  invented  the  building  of  a  flip.  The 
Egyptian  priefts  feem  to  have  envied 
Phenicia  the  honour  of  having  given 
birth  to  thefe  famous  deities,  (whofe  rites 
were  fo  facred  and  myfterious,  and  fo 
generally  obferved,)  and  claimed  them 
as  their  own.  For  they  faid  Ilcrodo- 
ft*s  g,  that  the  Cabiri  h  were  the  fons  of 
Vulcan,  the  oldeft  of  their  godc.  I  will 
not  enter  into  this  difpute  ;  but  muft 
obferve,  that,  though  the  Phenician  Ca- 
birs  are  allegorized  by  many  ancient  as 
well  as  modern  writers  *,  yet  were  they 


Ex.  as  ra  TZvSvx.,   Aioo-x.ugoit    y  Kotfiugoi,  in  K 

.    Eufeb.  Praep.  Evan.    1.  I.  p.  36.  A.      See 
p.  39.   B.  C. 

s  L.  3.  c.  37.  h  See  Hefych.  in  voce. 

5  Letters  on  Mythol.  p.  278.  Jabloniki,  Pantheon 
J£gypt.  torn.  2.  Prolegom.  p.  61.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor, 
1.  i.  c.  4.2. 

real 


in  polijhed  Nations .  141 

real  human  perfonages,  and  worshipped 
as  fuch  by  the  people.  The  fon  of  Tha- 
bion  is  faid  to  be  the  firft  who  turned 
their  hiftory  into  allegory  k. 

It  will  be  proper  to  take  notice  of 
fome  other  Phenician  deities,  who  were 
certainly  of  human  extraft.  Sanchoni- 
athon1  makes  mention  of  Cbryfor,  (faid 
to  be  the  fame  with  Vulcan,)  as  one 
who,  for  his  ufeful  inventions,  was,  af 
ter  his  deceafe,  worfliipped  as  a  god : 
of  Agrotes^  who,  for  a  like  reafon,  was 
honoured  with  a  ftatue  and  temple,  and 
was  eminently  called  the  greateft  of  the 
gods m :  of  Dagon,  who,  having  difco- 
vered  bread-corn  and  the  plough,  was 
called  Jupiter  Aratrius  n  :  of  faautus,- 
(called  by  the  Alexandrians  Thoytb,  and 
by  the  Greeks  Hermes  J  the  fon  of  Mifor, 
and  the  inventor  of  letters  °  :  of  Elioun 

k  Eufeb.  Prasp.  Ev.  1.  I.  p.  39. 

1  Apud  Eufeb.   Praep.  Ev.  p.  35.  m  Id.  ib. 

n  Id.  p.  37.  D.  Hence  Dagon  was  called  r*wv, 
that  is,  frumenti  praefes,  as  it  is  explained  by  the  edi 
tor  of  Eufebius,  p.  36.  C. 

0  Id.  p.  36.  A. 

or 


142         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

or  Hypjiftus,  to  whom,  after  his  death, 
his  children  offered  facrifices  and  liba 
tions  p :  of  OuranuSy  from  whom  the  ele 
ment  over  us,  by  reafon  of  it's  excellent 
beauty,  is  called  Ouranus  or  heaven  q  : 
and  of  Gee,  from  whom  earth  took  it's 
name r.  Ouranus  had,  by  his  fitter  Gee, 
ChronoSy  who  founded  Byblus,  and  after 
his  death  was  confecrated  into  the  pla 
net  called,  after  his  name,  ChronoSy  or 
Saturn  \  Many  more  examples  of  the 
fame  kind  might  be  produced  from  San- 
choniathon ;  but  I  fhall  take  notice  only 
of  two,  Aftarte  and  Hercules. 

The  celebrated  Aftarte^  according  to 
this  author  ',  was  the  daughter  of  Ou 
ranus.  She  is  called  the  greateft  goddefs  % 
and  was  the  fame  with  Aphrodite,  or  Ve- 

p  ib.  *  P.  36.  B. 

r  Concerning  the  deification  of  Ouranus  and  Gee, 
fee  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.3.  p.  224,  225.  ed.  WefTeling. 
and  La&antius,  de  Falf.  Relig.  1.  i.  p.  52,  53*  Gee 
feems  to  anfwer  to  Hertbum,  fpoken  of  above,  p.  44. 

•  Eufeb.  P.  E.  p.  40.  C.  p.  156.  D. 

'  Id.  p.  37. 

u  Sanchon.  ap.  Eufeb.  P.  E.  1.  i.  p.  38.  C. 


in  pollfhed  Nations.  1  43 

nus>  according  to  the  Phenicians  w.  Plato 
alfo  calls  her  the  ancient  and  celeftial  Ve 
nus;  and  fpeaks  of  her,  as  Sanchonia- 
thon  does,  as  the  daughter  of  Uranus  *. 
In  Cicero  likewife  the  Syrian  Venus  is 
called  Aftarte  y.  She  was  worfhipped  by 
the  Arabians,  Perfians,  AlTyrians,  and 
Syrians  ;  and  held  in  peculiar  venera 
tion  at  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  Byblus  z.  This 
female  deity  reigned  in  Phenicia  a,  and 
was  thought  to  be  worshipped  by  the 
Sidonians  and  Carthaginians  under  the 
name  of  Juno  \ 


Id* 

p«  38.  C,  D.  Suidas  fays,  that  Aflarte  was  called  Ve 
nus  by  the  Greeks. 

*  Plato,  Sympof.  p.  180.  ed.  Serran. 

y  De  Nat.  Deor.  1.3.  0.23.  Venus  quarta,  Syria 
*Pyroque  concepta,  qu^  Aflarte  vocatur.  —  Compare 
Herodot.  1.  I.  c.  105,  131.  and  what  was  obferved  a- 
bovtf  concerning  Urania,  p.  68-71.  —  See  Herodian, 
1.5.  c.  15.  p.  193. 

z  Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  105,  131.  —  •  Lucian.  de  Dea 
Syr.  p.  657,  658. 

a  Phenicia  was  called  the  land  of  Venus,  ^fchyl. 
Supplices,  v.  563. 

b  Virgil.  ^En.  I.  446. 

With 


144         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

With  regard  to  the  Phenician  Hef- 
cules  of  Tyre,  where  he  had  a  temple c 
ere6led  to  him,  he  was  the  fon  of  De- 
maroon,  and  was  by  the  Phenicians  cal 
led  Melcarthus  *.  He  is  thought  by  fome 
to  be  the  oldeft  of  all  the  great  heroes 
of  the  name  of  Hercules.  His  temple 
at  Tyre  was  faid  to  be  as  old  as  the  cityd, 
In  the  fame  city  there  was  a  temple  de 
dicated  to  Hercules  under  the  title  of 
^fhafian  d. 

The  reader  muft  have  obferved,  that 
feveral  of  the  foregoing  proofs  of  the 
Phenicians  paying  religious  worfhip  to 
human  fpirits  are  furniflied  by  the  Greek 
writers  ;  though  we  have  been  told*, 
that  the  Greeks  have,  without  doubt,  de 
clared  the  contrary.  In  confirmation  of 
what  has  been  urged,  I  muft  obferve, 
that  the  cruel  cuftom  of  offering  human 
facrifices  was  praftifed  in  Phenicia  more 
frequently,  and  with  circumftances  of 

c  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  44. 

*  Eufeb.  P.  E.  p.  38.  A.     He  was  alfo  called  Malic  > 
or  king.     Hefych. 

d  Id.  ib.  e  Fell,  p.  31. 

greater 


in  polijhed  Nations .  145 

greater  barbarity,  than  in  any  other 
country.  A  colony  of  Phenicians,  fet 
tled  at  Carthage,  when  firft  tranfplant- 
ed,  faerificed  to  Saturn  (whom  we  have 
fpoken  of  before)  the  fons  of  their  moft 
eminent  citizens  ;  though,  in  after- 
times,  the  children  of  the  poor,  bought 
and  bred  up  for  that  purpofe,  were  fub- 
ftituted  in  their  room  f.  Two  hundred 
fons  of  the  nobility,  together  with  three 
hundred  other  perfons,  have  been  offer 
ed  up  at  one  time  g.  The  circumftances 
attending  thefe  barbarous  rites  are  pre- 
ferved  by  Diodorus  Siculus h,  but  are  too 
{hocking  to  be  recited.  No  wonder  that 
a  multitude  of  fuch  facrifices,  equally 
impious  and  inhuman,  (hould  be  fpoken 
of  in  Scripture  as  the  ground  of  God's 
fingular  difpleafure  againil  the  Canaan- 
ites,  and  of  his  purpofe  to  extirpate 
them.  But  they  are  taken  notice  of 
here,  becaufe  they  furniih  a  proof,  (as 
will  be  {hewn  hereafter,)  that  the  Chro- 

'  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  20.  p,  415.  8  Id.  p.  415,  416. 

h  P.  416.   rd.  Wcff. 

L  nus 


146         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

nus  or  Saturn,  to  whom  they  were  of 
fered,  was  the  fame  deified  monarch  of 
Phenicia  who  facrificed  his  own  fon*. 


SECT.     II. 

T    ET    us  proceed  to  inquire,  whether 
heroes  and  gods  of  earthly  origin 
were  worfhipped  by  the  EGYPTIANS. 

We  are  now  entering  on  a  fubjeft  of 
fingular  importance.  Whether  Egypt 
derived  it's  religion  from  the  eaftern  na 
tions,  as  fome  5  contend ;  or  whether,  as 
others  a{Tertk,  the  eaftern  nations  deri 
ved  their  religion  from  Egypt ;  on  either 
fuppofition,  both  religions  were  formed 
upon  the  fame  model,  and  there  muft 

*  Eufeb.  P.  E.  p.  38.  »  The  eaflern  writers. 

k  Lucian  afcribes  to  the  Egyptians  the  firft  know 
ledge  of  the  gods,  and  of  their  rites  of  worfhip ;  and 
fays,  it  was  derived  from  them  to  the  Aflyrians,  De 
Syria  Dea,  p.  656,  657.  torn.  2.  —  Eufebius  affirms, 
that  the  polytheifm  of  the  nations  had  it's  firft  rife  in 
Phenicia  and  Egypt,  and  was  from  thence  propagated 
into  other  countries,  and  Greece  in  particular.  Prasp. 
Ev.  1.  i.  p.  30.  C.D. 

have 


in  polifoed  Nations,  147 

have  been  a  great  refemblance  between 
them.  As  to  the  weftern  nations,  par 
ticularly  Greece  and  Italy,  it  is  allowed 
by  all,  that  they  received  their  theology 
from  Egypt  and  the  eaft.  The  religion, 
therefore,  of  all  the  nations  polilhed  by 
learning  muft  have  been  the  fame,  in  all 
it's  eflential  principles  5  and  a  knowledge 
of  the  gods  of  any  one  of  them  will  affift 
us  in  forming  our  judgement  concern 
ing  thofe  of  the  others.  But  Egypt  de 
mands  our  particular  attention,  as  well 
on  account  of  her  high  reputation  and 
extenfire  influence  amongft  the  ancient 
nations,  as  of  the  full  information  we 
have  concerning  her  obje£ts  of  worfhip. 
The  theology  of  Egypt  is  indeed  the  key 
to  that  of  all  the  other  countries  here 
fpoken  of.  Not  to  add,  that  thofe  wri 
ters,  who  feem  difpofed  to  refolve  the 
great  gods  of  the  Heathens  into  &.pky- 
fical  fyftemy  derive  their  chief  arguments 
from  the  accounts  which  are  given  us  of 
the  Egyptian  divinities.  They  will  by 
no  means  allow,  that  fuch  gods  as  had 
L  2  once 


148          Wor/hip  of  human  Spirits 

once  been  men  were  ever  worfhipped  in 
Egypt,  whatever  might  be  the  cafe  in 
other  countries. 

There  are,  however,  many  prefump- 
tive  proofs  of  the  contrary.  Thofe  na 
tions  which  derived  their  theology  from 
Egypt  (Greece,  in  particular,  which 
borrowed  from  it  the  very  names l  of  their 
gods)  did  certainly  worfhip  human  fpi- 
rits.  Is  it  unnatural  to  conclude,  from 
hence,  that  the  Egyptians  did  the  fame  ? 
—  They  were  the  firft  who  erefted  ima 
ges  m  in  honour  of  the  gods  :  and  were 
not  images  in  human  form  reprefenta- 
tions  of  human  beings  ?  —  They  are  faid 
to  be  the  firft  who  held  the  immortality 
of  the  foul  of  man,  which  they  explained 

1  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  50. 

m  Id.  1.  2.  €.4.  —  Plato  affirms,  that  the  Egyptians 
had  fculpture  for  ten  thoufand  years  before  his  time.  De 
Leg.  1.2.  p.  656.*  ed.  Serrani.  And,  though  Lucian 
thought  that  their  moil  ancient  temples  were  without 
images,  yet  he  allows,  that  afterwards  the  Afiyrians, 
who  derived  their  theology  from  Egypt,  placed  images 
in  their  temples.  De  Dea  Syr.  p.  657. 

by 


in  poUJhed  Nations.  1 49 

by  it's  tranfmigration n  :  principles  that 
either  lay  at  the  foundation  of  it's  fu 
ture  affociation  with  the  gods,  or  that 
were  intimately  connected  with  it  °.  — 
According  to  Diodorus  Siculus,  they 
worfhipped  their  kings,  while  on  p  earth, 
as  real  gods.  Cleopatra  claimed  to  be 

n  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  123. 

0  So  clofely  connected,  in  the  idea  of  many  of  the 
ancients,  were  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  and  it's  fu 
ture  deification  or  affociation  with  the  gods,  that  Hero 
dotus  defcribes  the  Getes,  becoming  companions  of  Za- 
molxis,  by  faying,  they  immortalized :  A&sevafFi&sei  $s 
TOV  &  TOV  TgOTTov.  L.  4.  c,  94.  Immortality  feems  to  have 
been  ufed  almoft  as  fynonymous  to  deification  in  Dio- 
.dorus  Siculus,  lib.  3.  p.  243.  Hn.  4.  ed.  WcfT.  and 
alfo  in  p.  24.  lin.  10.  (which  will  be  cited  in  the  fe- 
quel,)  and  in  many  other  writers.  As  to  the  doctrine 
of  tranfmigration.,  it  led  them  to  believe,  that  the  fame 
god  might  be  often  bcrn  ;  as  appears  from  the  claim  of 
Cleopatra  and  others. 

P    ft$    w§o?    o^r,$6»a»    p>raj  StXc.       L.I.    p.  IOI.  —  The 

fame  thing  is  plainly  intimated  in  the  following  lines  of 
Virgil,  Georg.  IV.  210. 

Prseterea  regem  non  fie  ^Egyptus,  et  ingens 
Lydia,  nee  popali  Parthcrum,  aut  Indus  Kydafpes, 
Obfervant.  . 

L  3  JJis 


150          V/orjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Ifi-s q  herfelf,  one  of  the  principal  objects 
of  their  devotion. 

If  you  a(k,  how  is  it  poffible  that  a 
nation,  wife  and  learned  as  the  Egyp 
tians,  fhould  worfhip  dead  men  and  wo 
men  ?    I  anfwer,    that,  inafmuch  as  all 
allow,  and  cannot  but  allow,  that  they 
acknowledged  gods  whom  they  fed  in  the 
flail,  nay,  that  grew  in  their  gardens, 
why  fhould  it  be  thought  incredible  that 
they  fhould  deify  beings  of  a  more  noble 
nature  than  brutes  and  vegetables  ?    Be- 
fides,  it  will  be  proved  hereafter r,  that 
the  reafon  why  brutes  were  worshipped 
was  the  notion  of  their  being  animated 
by    the  fouls   of  departed   men.      The 
foregoing   confiderations   may    at    leaft 
prepare    us     to     receive     the     pofitive 
proofs,    which  I  fhall  now  produce,   of 
the   worfhip   of   human   fpirits  in    E~ 

gyp- 

i  Cleopatra  fibi  tantum  adfumferat,  ut  fe  Ifm  vejlet 
yideri.    Servius,  in  Mn.  VIII.  696. 
f  See  alfo  above,  p,  125.  note  s. 

j.  Hermes 


in  polijhed  Nations .  151 

i.  Hermes  *Trifmegiftus*  acknowledged, 
that  the  gods  of  Egypt  were  dead  men ; 
that  the  art  of  making  gods  was  invent 
ed  in  this  country ;  and  that  human 
fouls  were  worshipped  as  demons  in  e- 
very  city.  Amongft  the  human  perfon- 
ages  confecrated  into  gods,  Trifmegif- 
tus  fpecifies,  '  ^Efculapius,  Ifis,  and  the 
elder  Hermes,  or  Mercury  ;  three  of  the 
moil  celebrated  divinities  of  Egypt.  The 

8  Hermes  ipfe  .  deos  ,/Egypti  homines  mortuos 

effe  teftatur.  Cum  enim  dixiflet  proavos  fuos in- 

veniiTe  artem  qua  efHcercnt  deos.  Terrenis  diis  at- 

que  mundanis  facile  eft  irafci ;  utpote  qui  lint  ab  homi- 
nibus  ex  utraque  natura  fac~:i  atque  compofiti.  Ex  utra- 
que  natura  dicit,  ex  anima  et  corpore  :  ut  pro  anima  fit 
dxinon,  pro  corpore  iimulachrum.  Unde  contigit,  in- 
quit,  ab  ./Egyptiis  hac  fancla  animalia  nuncupari,  co- 
lique  per  fmgulas  civitatcs  eorum  animas,  &c.  Au- 
guft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.8.  c,  26.  p.  513,  514. 

*  Ecce  duos  deos  dicit  homines  fuiffe,  ^fculapium 

€t  Mercurium.  Addit,  et  dicit,  Ifm  vero  uxorem 

(Ofiridis),  quam  multa  bona  pr?~ftare  propitiufn,  quantis 
fcimus  obefTe  iratam  r?  Deinde  ut  oftencleret  ex  hoc  ge- 
nere  effe  deos,  quos  ilia  arte  homines  faciunt  :  unde  dat 
intelligi  dtemones  fe  opinari  ex  hominum  mortuorum 
k,i)imis  e.xtitific.  Id.  p.  513. 

L  4  laft 


152         Worjhty  of  human  Spirits 

laft  he  calls  his  own  grandfather,  after 
whom  name  he  was  denominated.* 

2.  The  teftimony  of  Sanchoniathon  was 
produced  above  u ;  and  we  have  feen  him 
affirming,  that  the  Egyptians,    as  well 
as   the  Phenicians,  accounted  thofe  the 
greateft  gods,  who  had  been  eminent  be- 
nefaftors  to  mankind. 

3.  My  next  appeal  {hall  be  to  Hero* 
dotusy  who  had  vifited  Egypt,  and  fpared 
no  pains  to  inform  himfelf  concerning 
the  religion  of  that  country.     The  very 
ingenious   Dr.  Blackwell  w,    and  a  for 
reigner *  of  diftinguifhed  learning,  would 
willingly  infer,  from  a  paflage  in  this 
hiftorian,  that  the  Egyptians  faid  no  re~ 
ligious   honours   to  heroes Y.      They  feern, 
ho>vever,  to  have  miftaken  the  meaning 
of  their  author,  by  not  Attending  to  the 
connexion   of    the   paffage   in   queftion 
with  the  preceding  context.     Herodotus 

*  Id.  ib.  *  P.  135. 
w  In  Letters  on  Mythol.  p.  209. 

*  Jablonfki,  Pantheon^Egypt.  torn.  2.  Frolegom.  p. 37. 
y  Ncyx»£«<n  ^u»  Ajyt^WTto*  a^  v^ua-i  v$iv.     L.  2.    C.  50. 

is 


in  polijhed  Nations .  153 

is  fpeaking  of  Neptune,  and  (hewing 
that  the  Greeks  learnt  the  name  of  this 
god  from  the  Libyans,  not  from  the  E- 
gyptians ;  who,  as  this  hiftorian  elfe- 
where  z  informs  us,  affirmed,  that  they 
did  not  know  the  name  of  Neptune,  nor 
ever  received  him  into  the  number  of 
their  gods.  Concerning  Neptune  alone 
Herodotus  fpeaks,  when  he  fays,  the 
Egyptians  did  not  honour  him  at  #//,  as 
Gale  renders  the  original a.  But  it  is 
very  probable,  that  the  text  is  corrupt 
ed,  and  that  the  true  reading  makes  no 
mention  of  heroes,  and  only  imports, 
that  they  do  not  facrifice  b  to  him  (Nep 
tune)  5  that  is,  the  Egyptians  did  nei 
ther  acknowledge  his  divinity,  nor  pay 
him  any  worfhip.  Indeed  the  occafion 
did  not  lead  Herodotus  to  fpeak  about 
heroes  j  for  Neptune  was  advanced  by  the 
Libyans  to  the  higher  rank  of  gods, 

*  L.2.  0.43. 

a  Ovo~'  y^ua-i*  a&v,  nullo  honore  profequuntur. 
b  Some  copies  read,  w  fy  fyuo-n  *?&».     Variantes  Lec- 
tiones  ad  librum  ii.  Herodot.  p,  10.  cura  Galei. 

though 


154         Wbrjhfp  of  human  Spirits 

though  originally  a  mere  mortal.  Nor 
was  it  pofllble  for  the  hiftorian  to  affirm, 
that  the  Egyptians  paid  no  religious  ho 
nours  to  the  fouls  of  dead  men,  with 
out  groffly  contradicting  himfelf.  For, 

I  fliall  now  proceed  to  prove,  from  the 
teftimony  of  this  inquifitive  traveller, 
that  human  fouls  were  worfhipped  in 
Egypt.  He  affirms,  that,  at  Chemmis  c, 
in  the  province  of  Thebes,  Perfeus,  the 
fon  of  Danae,  had  a  temple  c  dedicated 
to  him,  in  which  his  image  was  placed  ; 
and  that  he  was  faid  by  the  inhabitants 
frequently  to  appear  rifing  out  of  the 
earth  d.  The  priefts  informed  him,  that 
king  Proteus,  a  native  of  Memphis,  was 
honoured  with  a  ftately  temple  in  that 
city  e.  In  this  temple  there  was  a  char. 
pel  dedicated  to  Venus  the  Stranger, 
whom  he  fuppofed  to  be  Helena,  the 
daughter  of  Tyndarus  f.  Mars,  who  re- 


c  Ev  return  TV  •aroAi  sr*  U^aeo?  ra  Aava^jj  i^oy.  Herodot, 
1.  2.  c.pl. 

A  Ib.  e  Id.  c.  112,   118,   119. 

f  Cap.  112,  113.  Strabo  refers  to  this  Venus,  1.  17. 
p.  1161. 

turned 


in  polijhed  Nations.  155 

turned  to  his  mother  when  he  attained 
to  the  age  of  man g,  was  worfhipped  at 
Pampremis h.  And  Hercules  (of  whom 
farther  mention  will  be  made)  had  a 
temple  near  the  Canopian  mouth  of  the 
river  Nile,  which,  Herodotus  fays,  re 
mained  to  his  time '.  Thefe  inllances 
of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  E- 
gypt,  recorded  by  Herodotus,  were  cer 
tainly  overlooked  by  thofe  writers  who 
affirmed,  upon  the  fuppofed  authority 
of  this  hiftorian,  that  the  Egyptians 
paid  no  religious  honours  to  any  gods  of 
earthly  extract. 

But  we  may  advance  farther,  and  ob- 
ferve,  that  Herodotus  has  recorded  fe- 
veral  fa£ts,  which  ferve  to  ftiew,  that 
fome  at  leaft  of  all  the  different  orders 
of  Egyptian  gods  were  no  other  than 
men  and  women  deified.  He  makes  La- 
tona,  who  refided  in  Butus,  one  of  the 
eight  primary  deities  of  Egypt k.  Ac- 

e  Cap.  64.  h  Cap.  59.  »  Cap.  113. 

k  Ar,Tu  ttc-ot.  ruv  GX.TU  SEWJ*  ryy  TT^UTUV  ytvopu/uvj  oixeucrtX: 
01  i>  Baro»  n-o^t,  L.  2.  c.  156, 

cording 


156  Worfhlp  of  human 

cording  to  our  author,  Pan  alfo  was 
reckoned  in  this  number  by  the  Mende- 
fians  J,  and  was  confidered  by  fome  as  the 
oldeft  of  the  eight  primary  gods  m.  Now, 
Pan,  as  we  learn  from  hiftory  n,  accom 
panied  Ofiris  in  his  fuccefsful  expedition 
to  the  Indies/  We  are  farther  told  by 
Herodotus,  that  the  Cabiri  were  faid  to 
be  defcended  from  Vulcan  *  :  and  that, 
when  the  Egyptians  added  four  more 
gods  to  the  eight  juft  now  fpoken  of, 
Hercules  made  one  of  the  twelve  °,  whom 
the  hiftorian  confiders  as  a  man  ;  as  will 
be  fhewn  in  the  fequel.  He  likewife 
makes  mention  of  a  third  order  of  gods, 
to  which  Bacchus  belonged,  as  Hercules 
did  to  the  fecond,  and  Pan  to  the  firft  p. 
Now,  Bacchus,  we  have  feen,  was  edu 
cated  in  Arabia  q. 

But  it  is  objefted,  that,  according  to 
Herodotus,  the  priefts  of  Egypt  affirmr- 
ed,  that,  in  eleven  thoufand  three 


1  Cap.  46.  m  Cap.  145, 

B  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  21.  WefT.  *  Above,  p.  140. 

«  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  43,   145.  P  Cap.  145. 
s  Above,  p.  85. 

dred 


'in  polijhed  Nations.  1 57 

dred  and  forty  years,  there  had  been  no 
god  in  the  form  of  a  man T :  —  that,  ac 
cording  to  the  fame  author 8,  the  priefts 
of  Jupiter  at  Thebes  would  by  no  means 
allow,  that  a  man  could  be  begotten  by  a 
goo1,  or  that  any  one  Piromis *  had  been 
reputed  either  a  god  or  a  hero  :  —  and 
that  the  Theban  priefts  farther  affirmed, 
that  in  the  molt  ancient  times  the  gods- 
had  been  the  fovereigns  of  Egypt,  the  laft 
of  whom  was  Orus,  the  fon  of  Ofiris'. 
From  thefe  circumftancs  a  learned  wri 
ter  w  concludes,  that  the  Egyptians  were 
ftrangers  to  the  deification  of  men, 

In  anfwer  to  this  objeftion,  it  may  be 
obferved,  ift.  That,  in  reading  Hero 
dotus,  we  are  carefully  to  diftinguiih 
between  the  fa£ts  which  he  affirms,  or 
appears  to  credit,  and  thofe  which  he 
profefledly  reports  upon  the  teftimony 
of  others.  He  himfelf  has  often  pointed 

r  Lib.  2.    0.142.  3  Cap.  143,   144. 

1  Piromis  anfwcrs  to  xaXo;  y/ayaSoj,  according  to  He 
rodotus. 
«  Cap.  144.       w  jablonlki,  torn.  2.  Prolegom.  p.  37. 

out 


158         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

• 

out  this  diftin6lion,  particularly  in  the 
following  paflage  :  I  am  obliged  to  relate 
what  is  faid)  but  I  am  not  obliged  to  believe 
every  thing  without  diftinttion  ;  and  I  de* 
Jire  that  this  declaration  may  be  attended  to 
through  the  x  courfe  of  my  hi/tor  y.  Now, 
Herodotus  does  not  affirm  the  truth  of 
any  one  of  the  particulars  which  form 
the  objeftion  we  are  confideririg,  but 
profefledly  fpeaks  of  them  as  reports  he 
received  from  the  priefts  y.  His  autho 
rity  therefore  is  improperly  urged  to 
prove,  that  the  Egyptians  did  not  wor- 
(hip  mortal  divinities.  He  knew  the 
contrary  to  be  true  \ 

x  Herodot.  I.  7.  c.  i£±.  » 

*  Herodotus  does  not,  I  allow;  opealy  contradid 
thefe  reports  ;  nor  was  he  at  liberty  to  do  it,  if  he  was 
initiated  into  the  myfteries,  as  he  probably  was.  With 
what  referve  he  fpeaks  of  the  gods,  may  be  feen  by  con- 
fulting  lib.  2.  c.  3,  45,  65,  71. 

2  See  above,  p.  154,  155,  156,  and  what  is  faid  con 
cerning  Hercules  below.  He  feems  to  have  had  no  con 
ception  that  there  was  any  eflential  difference  between  the 
Egyptians  and  the  generality  of  mankind  refpe&ing  thtf 
gods,  but  fuppofed  all  men  thought  alike  concerning  them  i 


C.  3, 

stdly* 


in  polijhed  Nations.  i  59 

2dly.  As  to  the  priefts  of  Egypt,  it 
may  be  prefumed,  that  they,  like  other 
heathen  priefts,  difcouraged  all  free  in 
quiry  concerning  the  gods  * :  they  might 
be  inftrufted  not  to  fpeak  openly  of  the 
earthly  origin  of  Serapis,  Ifis b,  and  o- 
thers ;  and,  as  their  gods  had  been  their 
kings,  they  might  pretend  that  their 
kings  were  gods  ;  and  thus  involve  the 
fubje6l  in  obfcurity.  Neverthelefs,  the 
priefts  themfelves  could  not  but  acknow 
ledge,  that  they  had  gods  of  mortal  ori 
gin.  This  appears  from  the  fa6ls  re 
cited  by  Herodotus,  upon  their  autho 
rity. 

4.  We  muft  not  pafs  over  the  account 
given  of  the  gods  of  Egypt  by  Manethoy 
becaufe  it  is  fuppofed  to  militate  againft 

a  It  feems  to  have  been  a  maxim  with  the  devout 
Pagans :  —  San&iufque  ac  reverentius  vifum  de  aclls 
deorum  credere  quam  fcire.  Tacit.  Mor.  Germ.  c.  34- 

b  Quoniam  fere  in  omnibus  templis,  ubi  coiebatur 
Ifis  et  Serapis,  erat  etiam  iimulachrum,  quod  digito 
labiis  impreflb  admonere  videretur,  ut  filentium  fieret : 
hoc  fignificare  idem  Varro  exiflimat,  ut  homines  eos 
faifle  taceretur.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  18.  c-5. 

that 


160         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

that  which  I  have  attempted  to  fupport. 
Manetho  was  chief-pried  of  Egypt  in 
the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphia,  and 
has  given  c  us  a  table  of  the  gods  and 
demi-gods  who  reigned  there  before  thofe 
kings  who  were  mere  mortals  ;  of  whom, 
we  are  told,  Menes  was  the  firft d :  and 
from  hence  fome  have  argued,  that  the 
Egyptians  did  not  deify  mere  mortals. 
But  the  argument  is  inconclufive  :  For 
it  would  not  follow,  from  their  having 
had,  in  the  moft  ancient  times,  gods  for 
their  kings,  that  they  did  not  afterwards 
exalt  their  kings  into  gods.  As  to  the 
fa6l  itfelf,  the  pretended  reign  of  the 
gods,  it  is  needlefs  to  point  out  the  ab- 
furdity  of  it,  or  to  difcredit  the  autho 
rity  by  which  it  is  fupported.  What 
reduces  it  neareft  to  the  ftandard  of 
truth,  is,  the  conjefture  of  a  learned 

c  See  Manetho,  apud  Syncell.  p.  18.  and  Eufeb*. 
Chron.  Gnec.  p.  7.  Compare  the  Old  Chronicle  cur 
rent  amongil  the  Egyptians,  an  imperfeft  copy  of  whick 
is  preferred  by  Syncellus,  Chronograph,  p.  51,  52. 

*  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  4,  99. 

writer, 


in  polifoed  Nations.  1  6  1 

writer  e,  that,  by  the  gods,  we  may  un- 
derftand  fome  of  the  antediluvians  3  and, 
by  the  demi-gods^  the  anceftors  of  the  E- 
gyptians  after  the  flood  down  to  the 
time  of  Menes. 

5.  Whatever  judgement  we  may  form 
of  the  fragments  of  Manetho,  yet  there 
can  be  no  objection  againft  the  teftimony 
of  Diodorus  Siculus  concerning  the  gods 
of  Egypt.  He  lived  in  an  age  when 
many  had  courage  to  inquire  into  the 
grounds  of  the  public  religion,  and  to 
fpeak  with  freedom  upon  the  fubjeft. 
From  this  excellent  writer  we  learn,  that 
the  Egyptians,  befides  the  fun  and  moon, 
whom  they  called  the  Jlrft  and  eternal 
gods  f,  acknowledged  fuch  as  were  taken 
from  the  earth  j  feveral  of  whom,  he  fays, 
had  been  kings  of  Egypt,  and  bore  the  fame 

e  Jac.  Perizon.  ^Egypt.  Origin,   torn.  i.  p.  84. 

atT*  Ar/wTrroH   uri^wirus    TO    TraAaioi/  yivou,ti>v<;9 
EJJ    TOV   noc-^ov,    K&I    Tqv    fuv  ohuv  <pt/cr*v  X«.T<*- 
ai  ^a^t•^ac^«^Ta5,    V7rrf.st,@w  MO.I  $vo  Sayj  <u$ixq  rt 
TOV  T£  •/jT.to*  KCU  T^J-  s-ihww.    Diodor.  Sic.  p.  14. 


Weff, 

M  names 


1  62          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

names  'with  the  celejlial  gods  g.  He  parti 
cularly  fpecifies  the  eight  great  gods  of 
Egypt11,  Sol,  Saturn,  Rhea,  Jupiter,  (cal 
led  alfo  Ammon  i  J  Juno,  Vulcan,  Vejla, 
and  Mercury  k.  He  adds,  that  Sol,  whofe 
name  was  the  fame  with  the  fun  in  the 
firmament,  was  the  firft  king  of  Egypt  ; 
though  fome  thought  the  firft  king  of 
that  country  to  be  Vulcan,  the  inventor 
of  fire,  or  of  the  firft  ufe  of  it  in  work 
ing  metals  \  Saturn  and  Rhea,  accord 
ing  to  the  fame  author,  reigned  after 
wards  -,  of  whom  (it  was  generally  faid) 
were  born  Jupiter  and  Juno,  from  whom 
fprang  the  five  following  gods,  Ofirisy 
Ifis,  fyphon,  Apollo  m,  and  Venus. 


AAAa?      ex  T-XTUV 

uv  svta?  xou  /3acr;A£t?  yeyovtv&i   XOITGC.  TVV  Ai- 

cy.uvv[j,v<;   woc-^siv   TOJJ 

Id.  p.  17'     Compare  Eufeb.  Prasp.  Ev.  p.  45. 
*  Id.  ib. 

1  Herodotus  alfo  (1.  2.  c.  42.)   fays, 
xaXsyijt  vov  Aia. 

k  He  was  fecretary  to    Ofiris.    Diodor.  Sic.  lib.  i, 
p.  19,  20,  24. 

1  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5.  p.  390. 

m  The  fame  as  Orus.    Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  144. 

Ofiris 


in  polijhed  Nations.  163 

Ofiris  and  Ifis  were  the  two  princi 
pal  n  divinities  of  Egypt,  in  the  manner 
of  whofe  worfhip  all  the  provinces  of 
that  country  were  agreed  °.  Now,  Dio- 
dorus  informs  us,  that  Ifis  and  Ofiris 
(who,  as  we  have  feen,  were  born  of  the 
fame  parents)  were  king  and  queen  of 
Egypt ;  that  Ofiris  conquered  the  moft 
diftant  nations  p  ;  that  he  deified  his  pa 
rents q,  and  was  himfelf  deified  in  his 

n  Plutarch,  de  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  355.  E.  fays,  that,  as 
foon  as  Ofiris  was  born,  a  voice  accompanied  him,  and 
proclaimed  him,  &7ravruv  xy^o?,  lord  of  all  things.  He 
was  faid  to  be  the  fame  as  Bacchus.  Herodot.  1.  2. 
c.  42,  144.  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  I.  p.  17.  ed.  WefT. 
Plutarch  makes  Bacchus  a  different  perfon  from  Ofiris, 
but  fpeaks  of  him  as  one  who  had  been  a  man.  Differt. 
on  Mir.  p.  182.  As  to  Ifis,  Herodotus,  1.2.  c.  40. 
tells  us,  that  Jbe  is  the  goddcfs  they  (the  Egyptians)  ef- 
teem  the  greateft.  She  was  the  fame  with  Ceres,  ac 
cording  to  the  Egyptians,  (Hcrodot.  1.2.  c.  59.  Diod. 
Sic.  1.  I.  p.  17.)  who  fay,  Jbe  frft  invented  bread-carK. 
Diodor.  Sic.  1.  I.  p.  17,  18.  We/f.  Aug.  Civ.  Dei, 
1.  8.  c.  27. 

*  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  42. 

P  Lib.  I.  p.  32.   Compare  Eufeb.  Prsep.  Ev.  1.  2.  c.  I. 

i  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  24,  25.  Vide  Augufl.  Civ.  Dei, 
1.  8.  c.  27. 

M  2  turn, 


j  64         Worjhty  of  human  Spirits 

turn,  and  a  third  part  of  the  lands  ap 
propriated  to  maintain  his  worfhip  r  ; 
and  that  after  his  death  he  received  equal 
honour  with  that  paid  to  the  celeftial 
gods  s. 

He  very  juftly  explodes  the  fable  con 
cerning  the  reign  of  gods  and  heroes  in 
Egypt,  and  fpeaks  of  it  as  countenanced 
only  by  a  part  of  the  Egyptians  '.  And, 
when  he  is  treating  concerning  feveral  of 
their  great  gods,  he  fays,  "  the  priefts 
"  had  perfect  information  concerning 
cc  their  Interment,,  which  they  concealed 
"  from  the  public,  becaufe  it  was  con- 
"  fided  to  them  as  a  fecret,  and  it  was 
"  dangerous  to  divulge  any  fecret  re- 
"  fpefting  the  gods"  u. 

6.  Amongft 

r  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  24,  25. 

*  A»«  TO  [AtytSoi;  run  svtgyccrwv  ffvpTntyowpivuv  hafttiv  vrctgx, 
nao-i  TJJ>  aSavacrucv,  xai  rw  tew  rot?  a^avjojf  7»/*>jv,  K.  r.  X. 
Diodor.  Sic.  p.  24. 

1  Mt$oXoy«<ri   ^'at'Twv  TIVE?  TO  ^ev  K^UTOV  ag%a,i  T)J5  Aiyvirrtt 
Ssy?  TE  xat  ->)^a<;t   x.  T-  A.     Id.   p.  53. 


701? 


in  policed  Nations.  1  6  5 

6,  Amongft  all  the  ancient  writers, 
who  have  given  us  an  account  of  the  re 
ligion  of  Egypt,  there  is  not  one  who 
had  fludied  the  fubje£l  with  more  atten 
tion,  or  who  was  more  zealous  to  give 
his  readers  a  favourable  impreffion  of  it, 
than  Plutarch.  His  learned  treatife,  en 
titled,  IJis  andOfiris>  was  written  on  pur- 
pofe  to  (hew,  that  there  was  nothing 
abfurd  or  extravagant  in  the  religious 
rites  of  the  Egyptians  ;  fome  inftruftion 
in  hiftory,  morals,  or  philbfophy,  being 
couched  under  them  w.  Neverthelefs, 
from  Plutarch  we  learn,  that  the  priefts 
affirmed,,  that  the  bodies  of  their  gods,  ex- 
cept  fuch  as  ivere  incorruptible  and  immor 
tal  \  lay  buried  with  them  *. 

M  3  As 


ctv  y.a.t  *tt$uittt  rarmeifzewit  TQH;  r  ctlfoggiA'it  Trsgi  TU» 
Qtuv  rxruv  iw\v(ra.m  su;  rut;  o^yj.     Id.   p.  32. 
*  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  353.  E. 

x  Plutarch,  having  fpoken  of  the  tomb  of  Ofris,  and 
alluded  to  fome  other  gods,  adds  :     Ov  //.o»oy  &  TUTU»  o^ 
AAa    xa»   rut 
r«  ,u.t»  cra^.ot 

».     De  If.  et  Oiir.    p.  359.   C.      Never 

thelefs 


1  66         WorJIrip  of  human  Spirits 

As  to  Ifis  and  Ofiris  in  particular,  Plu 
tarch  gives  us  at  large  the  hiftory  of  their 
parentage,  their  births,  their  kindred, 
their  exploits,  their  deaths  y,  He  alle 
gorizes  fonie  part  of  their  hiftory,  and 
feerns  to  think  there  was  a  hidden  mean 
ing  in  the  whole  of  it,  agreeably  to  the 
main  defign  of  his  work,  which  was  to 
reconcile  the  Egyptian  theology  with  the 
principles  of  reafon  ;  yet  their  hiftory 
was  underftood  literally  by  the  people  ; 
nor  was  it  lawful  to  divulge  the  philo- 
fophical  explication  of  itz.  Agreeably 
to  the  reprefentation  Plutarch  makes  of 
Ofiris  as  a  man,  he  tells  us,  that  he  was 
every  where  worfaipped  under  a  human 
form  a.  With  refpeft  to  Hermes, 


t-helefs,  Mr.  Fell,  in  the  ftile  of  a  perfon  well  acquainted 
with  Plutarch,  fays,  p.  83.  that  Plutarch  <was  very 
fareful  never  to  attribute  this  opinion  (viz.  that  the  gods 
of  Egypt  had  been  men)  to  the  Egyptian  priefts, 

y  As  to  the  place  of  Ofiris's  burial,  fee  Plutarch  de 
If.  et  Our.  p.  359. 

z  Id.  ib.  p.  360.  E.  F. 


Plutarch,  de  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  371, 

(the 


in  polijhed  Nations.  \  67 

(the  brother  of  Ofiris,  whom  he  flewb,) 
and  Orus,  as  well  as  Ofiris,  Plutarch  ac 
knowledges,  that  the  defcription,  given 
by  the  Egyptians,  of  the  figure  and  co 
lour  of  their  bodies,  plainly  fuppofed 
they  had  been  mere  men  c.  Concerning 
His  and  Ofiris,  he  fays^  they  were,  for 
their  virtue,  changed  from  good  demons  into 
gods,  as  were  Hercules  and  Bacchus  after- 
wards,  receiving  the  united  honours  both  of 
gods  and  demons d. 

It  would  be  endlefs  to  produce  all  the 
proofs  of  the  worfliip  of  human  fpirits, 
in  Egypt,  from  heathen  writers  who 
only  occafionally  make  mention  of  the 
gods  of  that  country.  Plato  fpeaks  of 
'Theuth,  who  flourished  in  the  reign  of 
Thamus,  king  of  Egypt,  as  one  of  the  an- 

}>  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  24. 

c    n?  T*5  (pvo-H  ytynorac  av$^9T»?.      Plutarch.  If.  Ct  Oilr. 

p.  359.  E.     Eufeb.  Prsp.  Ev.  1.  3.  0.91. 

ri  Plutarch,  de  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  361.  Differt.  on  Mir. 
p.  182.  I  might  add,  that  Venus  Beleftica,  the  (lave 
of  an  Egyptian  monarch,  had  a  temple  creeled  to  her 
at  Alexandria.  Plutarch,  in  Erotico,  p.  753.  E.  F. 

M  4  cient 


1  68         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

cient  gods  e.  Lucian  reprefents  Alexan 
der,  after  he  was  dead,  as  hoping  to  be 
buried  in  Egypt,  that  he  might  become  one 
of  the  gods  of  that  country  f  .  In  Egypt,  fays 
Maximus  cTyriuS)  they  fhew  you  at  once 
the  temple  of  a  god  and  his  tomb  g.  The 
Latin  writers  fpeak  the  fame  language. 
Varro  h  confidered  Ifis  and  Serapis  as  ha 
ving  once  belonged  to  the  human  race. 
Apuleius  ranks  Ofuis  amongft  thofe  men 
who  were  raifed  to  the  rank  of  gods  !. 
Luc  an  goes  farther,  and  urges  the  mourn 
ful  or  funeral  rites,  with  which  Ofiris 
was  honoured  by  the  Egyptians,  as  their 
teftimony  to  his  having  been  a  mortal 


va  &suvt  *..  T.  A.  Platonis  Phasdrus,  p.  274. 
c.  ed.  Serrani.  Theuth  is  faid,  in  the  fequel,  to 
have  invented  arithmetic,  geometry,  aftronom)r,  and 
letters.  See  what  is  faid  above  concerning  Mercury, 
p.  in.  and  p.  141. 

f  fig  y-voipw  £15  rait  Ar/uTTTwv  Stun.     Lucian.    Dialog, 
Mort.  p.  291. 


mus  Tyrius,  Diilert.  38.  p.  398. 
h  Cited  above,  p.  159.  note  b, 
J  Above,  p.  97.  note  b, 

man, 


In  polifoed  Nations.  1 69 

man,  His  argument  proves,  that  he 
was  publicly  worfhipped  under  that  very 
charafter k. 

I  would  here  clofe  the  evidence  of  the 
worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  Egypt,  if  it 
were  not  neceflary  to  confider  the  cha- 
rafter  of  the  Egyptian  Hercules ;  which 
I  did  not  enter  upon  fooner,  becaufe  the 
proofs  of  his  having  been  a  man  are 
furnifhed,  not  by  one  only,  but  by  fe- 
veral  of  the  forementioned  writers.  He 
rodotus  J,  in  order  to  fhevv  that  the 

*  Tu  plangens  hominem  teftaris  Ofirin. 

Lucan.  VIII.  833. 

This  pafiage,  and  others  to  the  fame  purpofe,  were 
cited  in  the  Diilertation  on  Mir.  p.  194.  182,  Lucati's 
judgement  of  Qfiris  has  alfo  been  confirmed  here  by 
freih  teflimonies.  Neverthelefs  Mr.  Fell  is  pleafed  to 
fay,  p.  24.  <f  It  is  not  in  my  power  to  prove,  that  re- 
"  ligious  honours  were  ever  paid  to  any  deceafed  man 
"  under  the  name  of  Ofiris."  This  language  implies, 
that  no  proof  of  this  point  had  been  produced  in  the 
DifTertation  ;  —  that  no  proof  of  it  could  be  produced ; 
»—  and  that  Mr.  Fell's  knowledge  of  antiquity  rendered 
him  a  competent  judge  of  what  could  or  could  not  be 
proved  concerning  Ofiris.  I  leave  the  reader  to  form 
Jiis  own  judgement  concerning  thefe  three  proportions. 
1  Lib.  2.  c.  43,  44. 

Grecians 


170         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

Grecians  borrowed  the  name  of  this  god 
from  the  Egyptians,  and  not  the  Egyp 
tians  from  the  Grecians,  obferves,  that 
Hercules  was  one  of  the  ancient  gods  of 
the  Egyptians  ;  who  faid,  that,  feven- 
teen  thoufand  years  before  the  reign  of 
Amafis,  the  number  of  their  gods, 
which  had  been  eight,  was  increafed  to 
twelve;  and  that  Hercules  was  one  of 
thefe.  He  farther  informs  us,  that  there 
was  a  temple  dedicated  to  Hercules  at 
Tyre,  which  was  faid  to  have  been  built 
two  thoufand  three  hundred  years  ;  and 
that,  in  the  fame  city,  there  was  a  tem 
ple  erefted  to  Hercules  under  the  name 
of  'T'hafian  ;  and  that  the  fame  god  had  a 
temple  at  Thafus,  which  was  built  by 
the,  Phenicians  five  generations  before 
the  public  appearance  of  Hercules  in 
Greece.  Now,  what  is  the  inference 
which  Herodotus  draws  from  thefe  pre- 
rnifes  ?  Why,  that  Hercules  (meaning 
the  Egyptian)  was  a  very  ancient  god™  ; 


Ta  [Asv  vvv  irocritAfvct  055X0*  crex,<psctj<;   TraAoaov  Ssov  TOV  K£«- 
Eovra.     Lib.  2.  c,  44.     Herodotus    makes    mention 
of  zftatue  of  the  Egyptian  Hercules,  c.  42. 

that 


in  polifoed  Nations.  171 

that  is,  in  cornparifon  with  the  Grecian. 
He  defcribes  the  latter  as  the  fon  of 
Amphitryon  and  Alcmena ;  and  fays, 
that  both  his  parents  were  of  Egyptian 
defcent".  Now,  if  he  knew  that  the 
Grecian  Hercules  was  a  man,  he  cer 
tainly  believed  the  Egyptian  to  be  fo  too. 
Why,  otherwife,  did  he  compare  their 
different  ages  together  ?  Would  he  take 
pains  to  fhew,  that  a  natural,  that  is, 
an  eternal  °,  god  was  only  fome  thou- 
fand  years  older  than  one  who,  compa 
ratively  fpeaking,  was  but  lately  born  ? 
Befides,  according  to  Herodotus,  there 
were  eight  gods  in  Egypt  more  ancient 
than  Hercules.  Nor  does  the  hiftorian 
afcribe  to  him  any  pre-eminence  above 
the  fon  of  Amphitryon,  except  great  fe- 
niority,  and  the  higher  rank  to  which 
he  was  exalted  in  confequence  of  it. 
For,  from  his  greater  antiquity,  he 

n  Lib.  2.  0.43. 

0  The  ancients  called  the  natural  gods,  <*t^a?  KOU, 
ap$a£T»?.  Diodcr,  Siculus,  Fragmenta  ex  lib.  vi.  p. 
633.  ed.  Weff. 

draws 


172         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

draws  this  conclufion  :  therefore  thofe 
Greeks  aft  right  >  who  build  temples  to  two 
of  them,,  and  facrifice  to  one  as  an  immor 
tal  god,  under  the  name  of  Olympian,,  and 
honour  the  other  as  a  hero  p. 

We  have  here,,  —  fays  a  late  writer q, 
two  gods  of  the  fame  name  ;  the  one  a  natu 
ral  and  immortal  deity ,  Jtiled  Olympian ; 
the  other  an  hero-god,  acknowledged  to  have 
been  once  a  mortal  man  ;  each  having  fe- 
parate  temples  and  diftinffi  worfhip,  agree 
able  to  the  fuppofed  difference  of  their  na 
tures  and  characters*  The  gentleman 
would  not  have  reafoned  in  this  manner, 
had  he  been  acquainted  with  the  fenti- 
ments  of  antiquity  on  thefe  fubjefts,  or 
had  he  only  confidered  what  was  proved 
in  the  Diflertation  on  Miracles r,  and 
will  be  farther  eftablifhed  in  the  fequel ; 
viz.  that,  according  to  the  Heathens, 
fome  human  fouls  commenced  firft  he 
roes,  and  then  demons,  and  were  after 
wards  exalted  into  gods.  Then  they 

P  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  44,  1  Fell,  p.  13. 

'  P.  182,   183,  214. 

were 


in  polifhed  Nations.  173 

were  received  into  the  ftarry  heaven,  or 
(Ztherial $  region,  the  feat  of  the  immvrtal 
divinities,  fometimes  called  Olympus c. 
The  Hercules  who  attained  to  this  ho 
nour  was,  on  this  account,  very  pro 
perly  ftiled  Olympian,  to  diftinguifh  him 
from  the  other,  while  he  had  not  yet  ri- 
fen  above  the  rank  of  a  hero,  and,  as 
fuch,  refided  in  the  regions  of  the  air 

8  Varro,  1.  16.  apud  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  7.  c.  6. 
fays  :  A  fummo  circuitu  cceli,  ufque  ad  circulum  lunas, 
aethereae  animas  funt  aftra  et  ftellse  ;  iique  coeleftes  dii 
non  modo  intelliguntur  effe,  fed  etiam  videntur.  Inter 
lunae  vero  gyrum,  et  nimbornm  ac  ventorum  cacumina, 
aerese  funt  animai  :  fed  ese  animo,  non  oculis,  viden 
tur  ;  et  vocantur  heroes,  et  lares,  et  genii.  So  Lucan 
alfo,  1.  ix.  v.  6.  et  feq. 

Quodque  patet  terras  inter,  ccelique  meatus, 
Semidei  manes  habitant ;  quos  ignea  virtus 
lunocuos  vita,  patientes  a;theris  imi, 
Fecit,  et  seternos  anirnam  conlegit  in  orbes. 
See  below,  note  x. 

1  Viam  affe&at  Olympo.  Virg.  iv,  562. — Mo^ay  ww- 
/Aacr£»  Otoftfnv;.  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  4.  p.  261.  ed.  Wefll 
Anubis,  who  accompanied  Ofiris  in  his  expedition,  (id. 
I.  I.  p.  21.)  clothed  in  a  dog's  fkin,  is  reprcfented  by 
Plutarch  as  being  both  terreltrial  and  Olympic.  If.  et 
Ofir.  p.  368.  E. 

neareft 


174         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

neareft  to  the  ftars.  In  length  of  time, 
the  Grecian  Hercules  became  a  god,  and 
was  worfhipped  as  fuch u.  The  Roman 
writers  exprefily  fpeak  of  Hercules  as 
having  been  a  man  w,  and  yet  rank  him 
amongft  thofe  who  were  received  into 
the  ftarry  or  setherial  heaven,  and  ad 
mitted  into  the  community  of  the  great 
gods  x.  He  is  reprefented  with  Jupiter, 
on  fome  old  altars  and  relievos,  with  an 
infcription  y  fully  expreffive  of  this  dig 
nity.  In  like  manner,  the  Egyptian 
Hercules  was  ranked  with  the  great 
gods,  though  he  alfo  was  of  human  ex- 

tt  Paufanias,  Corinthiac.  1.  2.  c.  10.  p.  133.  ed. 
Kuhnti. 

w  The  Roman  law  was  :  Eos,  qui  cojleites  Temper 
habiti,  coiunto  ;  et  olios  quos  endo  ccelo  merita  collo- 
caverunt,  Herculem,  &c.  Cicero,  de  Legib.  1.  2.  c.  8. 
Laws  of  the  12  Tab.  2.  feft.  4. 

x  Poft  ingentia  fafta,  deorum  in  templa  recepti.  Ho- 
rat.Ep.  L  2.  ep.  I.  v.  7.  Arces  attigit  igneas.  Lib.  3. 
ode  3.  v.  17.  Hercules  was  one  of  the  few,  quos  ar- 
dens  evexit  ad  at  her  a  virtus,  as  Virgil  fpeaks,  ^n.  VI. 
130.  See  Silius  Italicus,  1.  15.  v.  83. 

y  Dlis  magnisy  to  the  great  gods.  Montfaucon,  v.  I. 
p.  16,  47. 

traft. 


in  polijhed  Nations.  175 

tra£l.      The  Olympian  Jupiter  himfelf 
had  been  a  man z. 

It  is  only  neceffary  to  add  farther, 
that  the  worfhip  of  heroes  was  different 
from  that  paid  to  fuch  human  fouls  as 
were  advanced  to  a  more  fublime  degree a : 
and  therefore  the  feparate  temples  and 
diftinft  worfhip  of  the  Olympian,  and 
of  the  hero,  Hercules,  are  improperly 
urged  as  proofs  of  their  being  originally 
of  different  natures  from  one  another. 
For,  if  the  Kercules  of  Egypt,  though 
not  fo  old  as  fome  other  gods  of  that 
country,  was  neverthelefs  much  more 
ancient  than  the  Hercules  of  Greece, 
and  advanced  to  the  dignity  of  the  ce- 
leftial  gods,  Herodotus,  on  the  fuppo- 
fition  that  both  of  them  had  been  men, 
would  conclude  that  the  former  ought 
to  be  worfhipped  as  an  immortal  or  O-° 
lympian  divinity,  and  the  latter  merely 

z  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  3.  p.  229,  230. 

*  See  Paufanias,  p.  133.  Differt.  on  Mir.  p.  182, 
183. —The  fubjefl  will  come  under  future  confide  - 
ration. 

with 


176         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

with  the  rites  to  which  heroes  were  en 
titled  before  they  became  gods.  Ac 
cording  to  Diodorus  Siculus b,  the  Egyp 
tian  Hercules  was  not  only  older  than 
the  Grecian,  but  even  than  any  other  5 
conquered  a  great  part  of  the  world, 
and  fet  up  pillars  in  Afric.  He  was  ge 
neral  of  the  forces  of  Ofiris  %  Plutarch 
makes  mention  of  him  amongft  thofe 
who,  after  death,  were  changed  from 
good  demons  into  gods d.  But,  though 
of  human  extraft,  Hercules  was  wor- 
(hipped  in  Egypt  with  the  moft  facred 
and  augufl  ceremonies  % 

b  Lib.  3.  p.  243.  e  Id.  p.  20. 

d  Difiert.  on  Mir.  p.  182.     See  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  5. 

e  Deus  Hercules  religione  quidem  apud  Tyron  co- 
litur  :  verum  facratiflima  et  auguftiffiira  Egyptii  reli- 
-gicne  venerantur,  ultraque  memoriam  (quae  apud  illos 
retro  longiffima  eil)  ut  carentem  initio  colunt.  Macrob. 
Saturn.  1.  I.  c.  20.  —  By  Hercules  we  are  to  under- 
Hand  the  fun,  according  to  Macrobius ;  and  this  opi 
nion  has  been  adopted  by  fome  learned  moderns.  But 
the  civil  theology  fuppofed  the  truth  of  the  literal  hif- 
tory,  and  was  indeed  built  upon  it.  Several  gods  bore 
the  name  of  Hercules,  (Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  1.3.  c.  16.) 
but  they  were  reprefented  to  the  people,  and  regarded 
by  them,  as  having  been  men. 

Ifhall 


in  polijhed  Nations  < 

I  fhall  produce  no  more  heathen  au 
thorities  in  fupport  of  the  point  I  un 
dertook  to  eftablifh.  If  we  rejeft  the 
foregoing  account  given  of  the  gods 
of  Egypt  by  the  Roman,  Greek',  Phe- 
nician,  and  Egyptian,  writers,  rnoft  of 
whom  fpoke  from  their  own  perfonal 
knowledge^  it  will  be  difficult  to  fay  on 
whofe  teftimony  we  can  fafely  rely. 

Nor  is  there  any  reafon  to  aflert,  as 
the  learned  Jablonfki  g  does,  that  the 
Greeks,  during  the  reign  of  Alexander's 
fucceflbrs  in  Egypt,  corrupted  the  reli 
gion  of  that  country,  and  that  later  wri- 

f  The  Greek  writers,  whofe  teftlmony  has  been  urged 
above,  are  Herodotus,  Plato,  Diodoras  Siculus,  Plutarch, 
Lucian,  and  Maximus  Tyrius.  Mr.  Fell  muft  have  been 
unacquainted  with  all  thefe  teflimonies,  (even  with  that 
of  Diodorus  Siculus,  well  known  to  every  other  writer 
upon  this  fubj  eft,)  when  Reaffirmed,  p.  31.  "  There 
"  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  Greeks  themfelves  have 
'  declared,  that  the  Egyptians  never  worfhipped  fuch 
'•'  gods  as  had  been  men."  But  this  gentleman  is  often 
fo  unfortunate,  as,  in  proof  of  his  erroneous  affeitions, 
to  appeal  to  thofe  very  authorities  which  contradict 
them.  See  above,  p.  30,  136. 

*  Prolegom.  p.  43. 

N  ters 


178         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

ters  have  mifreprefented  it.  No  proof 
of  this  aflertion  has  been  produced.  The 
Egyptians,  when  under  the  dominion  of 
the  Ptolemys,  might  adopt  new  gods h ; 
but  this  was  perfe£tly  confiftent  with  the 
general  principles  of  the  heathen  reli 
gion1.  There  is  a  perfect  agreement 
between  the  accounts  given  of  the  E- 
gyptian  gods,  by  thofe  writers  who  lived 
long  before  the  age  of  the  firft  Ptolemy, 
and  by  thofe  who  lived  after  it.  Their 
having  two  clafles  of  gods,  one  natural, 
the  other  mortal,  is  not  more  ftrongly 
aflerted  by  Diodorus  and  Plutarch,  than 
it  is  by  Hermes  Trifmegiftus  and  San- 
choniathon.  And  Herodotus,  againft 

h  Macrobius  thought  this  to  be  the  cafe  with  refpeft 
to  Saturn  and  Serapis.  Saturnal.  1.  i.  c.  7.  p.  150. 
cd.  Londini,  1694.  But  his  memory  feems  to  have 
failed  him  here.  Serapis  was  worfhipped  in  Egypt  long 
before  the  time  of  Ptolemy,  who  introduced  his  worfhip 
amongft  the  Athenians.  See  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  18. 
0.5.  and  Paufanias,  Attic,  p.  42.  ed.  Kuhnii.  Sa 
turn  was  a  god  of  great  antiquity  in  Egypt  and  Phe- 
nicia. 

>    *  See  what  was  faid  above  concerning  the  Gauls, 
p.U3. 

whofe 


in  polijhed  Nations.  179 

whofe  teftimony  no  objeftion  is  made, 
has  recorded  numerous  examples  of  the 
worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  Egypt,  upon 
the  authority  of  the  priefts  themfelves. 
But  the  objeftion  muft  fink  under  it's 
own  weight :  for,  what  Greece  was  to 
Rome,  that  Egypt  was  to  Greece  5  — 
the  revered  fource  of  fcience  and  reli 
gion.  And  it  is  as  unreafonable  to  fup- 
pofe,  that  the  Greeks*  during  the  reign 
of  the  Ptolemys,  changed  the  religion  of 
Egypt,  as  it  would  be  to  fuppofe,  that 
the  Romans  changed  the  religion  of 
Greece,  after  their  conqueft  of  that  coun 
try,  which  was  likely  to  produce  a  con 
trary  effeft k.  The  Egyptians  obftinately 
adhered  even  to  thofe  parts  of  their  re 
ligion  which  gave  moft  offence  to  foreign 
nations :  I  refer  to  their  worfhip  of  brutes 
and  vegetables,  which  they  praflifed  in  a 
much  higher  degree  than  any  other  people. 
The  foregoing  teftimonies  might  be 
confirmed  by  arguments  drawn  from  the 

k  The  Roman  worfhip  became  gradually 'more  and 
more  conformable  to  the  Grecian.  Dionyf.  Hal.  Antiq. 
Rom.  1  2.  c.  1 8,  19,  20. 

N  2  religious 


1 8  o         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

religious  rites  '  of  the  Egyptians,  from 
their  myfteries,  and  pyramids  ;  and  like- 
wife  from  the  opinion  of  the  Fathers 
and  other  Chriftian  writers  m.  But  thefe 
arguments  will  come  under  future  con- 

1  Particularly  from  human  facrifices.     It  muft  how 
ever  be  acknowledged,  to  the  honour  of  the  Egyptians, 
that   fuch  facrifices  were  not  fo  common  amongft  them 
as  they  were  in  other  nations.     Herodotus  (1.  2.  c.  45.) 
thought  it  improbable  that  they  ever  offered  them  :  but 
his  feafon  is  not  very  conclufive.    Macrobius  (Saturnal. 
l.i.  0.7.  p-  150.)    %s,  they  did  not  offer  any  bloody 
Sacrifice  :    but  herein  he  contradifts  Herodotus,  ubi  fu- 
pra.     Plutarch  relates,     (De  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  380.)   upon 
the  authority  of  Manetho,  that  men  were  burnt  alive 
in    the  city  of  Elithya.      And  Diodorus  Siculus  (1.  i. 
p.  99.  Weff.)  mentions  a  very  remarkable  circumftance ; 
viz.  that  they  were  facrificed   at  the   tomb  of  Ofiris  : 
which   ihews    to  what  gods  fuch  facrifices  were  offered. 
Human  facrifices  were  aboliihed  by  Amofis.    Porphyry, 
de  Abftinentia,  1.  2.  c.  223.  ed.  Lugdun.    Eufeb.  Pr<ep. 
Ev.  1.4.  c.  16.  p.  155.    But  they  were  revived  by  Bu- 
firis,  to  avert  a  national  calamity.  Apollodorus,  Biblio- 
thec.  1.  2.  p.  118,   119. 

">  See,  in  particular,  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  i.  c.  6. 
p.  17.  and  1.  3.  c.  3.  Auguft.  de  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  5, 
26.  and  1.  1 8.  c.  5.  Suidas  (in  voc.  Sagaw^)  fays,  that 
Apis  was  king  of  Memphis,  and  obtained,  after  death, 
divine  honours  for  his  liberality,  in  fupplying  the  citi 
zens  of  Alexandria  with  corn,  in  time  of  famine. 

fideration. 


in  polijhed  Nations.  1 8 1 

fideration.     If  I  take  notice  of  the  an 
cient   Chriftians   in  this  place,  it  is  for 
the  fake  of  clearing  them  from  the  charge 
of  forgery  :    for,  as  a  forgery  of  theirs, 
fome n  confider  the   celebrated  letter   of 
Alexander  to  his  mother  ;    in  which  he 
is  faid  to  have  communicated  to  her  the 
fecret  of  the  myfteries,  intrufted  to  him 
by  the  high-prieft  of  Egypt,  concerning 
the   human   origin   of  the  great   gods. 
But,  fuppofmg  the  letter  in  queftion  to 
be  a  forgery,  there   is  no  more  reafon 
for  afcribing  it  to  the  Chriftians,  than 
to   thofe  Heathens  who  openly  afferted 
that  their  gods  had  once  been  men.     It 
is  not  certain,  however,  that  it  was  a 
forgery.     Plutarch  feems  to  refer  to  it 
when  he  fays,    Alexander  informed  his 
mother  in  a  letter,   £C  that  he  had  received 
"  forne   fecret  anfwers,    which,    at  his 
:  return,  he  would  communicate  to  her 
"  only  °."      The  connexion  of  the  place 

n  Jablonfki,  p.  31. 

0  Plutarch.  Vit.  Alexandri,  p.  688.  F. 

N  3  leads 


1 8  2         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

leads  us  to  apply  this  to  the  origin  of 
the  gods :  for  Plutarch  had  been  juft  be 
fore  relating  what  the  high-prieft  faid  to 
Alexander  concerning  his  divine  defcent. 
As  to  it's  being  palled  over  in  filence  by 
Cicero,  Diodorus  Siculus,  and  fome  o- 
ther  heathen  writers,  (a  circumftance  on 
which  great  flrefs  is p  laid,)  the  reafon  of 
it  plainly  was,  their  having  more  au 
thentic  information  concerning  the  great 
fecret q  of  the  myfteries  than  a  private 
letter,  the  genuinenefs  of  which  might 
be  fufpedted,  and  the  contents  of  which 
were  probably  preferved  only  by  tradi 
tion,  and  therefore  varioufly  reported. 
The  credit  given  to  it  by  the  Fathers r 
jnuft  be  confidered  as  a  proof  of  their 
opinion  concerning  the  gods  of  Egypt. 

*  Jablonlki,  Prolegom.  p.  32. 

9  See  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  24.  ed.  WefT. 

r  Athenag.  Legat.  pro  Chriftian.  p.  24.  Minut. 
Felix,  Oftav.  c.  21.  Auguft.  Civ,  Dei,  1.8.  0.5.  and 
1.  12.  c.  10.  Cyprian,  de  Idol.  Vanitat.  p.  12.  ed. 
Oxon. 

From 


in  polijhed  Nations.  183 

From  the  various  teftimonies  9  which 
have  been  produced,  in  this  and  the  pre 
ceding  fe£tion,  it  appears,  that  both  the 
Phenicians  and  Egyptians,  though  they 
acknowledged  elementary  and  fidereal  de 
ities,  and  ailerted  more  efpecially  the  di 
vinity  of  the  fun  and  moon,  did  alfo 
worfhip  human  fpirits  :  and  that  the  E- 
gyptians  worfhipped  them  under  the  dif- 
tinft  charafters  of  heroes,  demons,  and 
gods.  —  It  farther  appears,  that  both 
the  Phenicians  and  Egyptians  account 
ed  their  princes  and  eminent  benefactors 
as  the  greateft  gods.  The  twelve  great 
gods  of  Egypt  in  particular,  as  well  as  the 
Cabirs  of  Phenicia  and  the  eaftern  na 
tions,  were  dead  men  deified.  —  Laftly, 

8  Mr.  Fell  affirms,  p.  22,  83.  that  "  it  is  UNIVER- 

"  SALLY  KNOWN,  that  the  Egyptians never  paid 

"  any  religious  honours  to  hero-gods."  The  reader 
may  from  hence  judge  how  great  a  ftranger  the  gentle 
man  was  to  the  Roman,  the  Greek,  the  Phenician,  a»4 
*h«  Egyptian,  writers,  and  alfo  to  the  Fathers.  His 
ignorance  of  antiquity,  both  heathen  and  chriilian, 
would  not  have  been  noticed,  had  it  not  been  proper 
that  it  mould  be  kncwn  what  credit  is  due  to  his  moll 
confident  affertions. 

N  4  the 


1 84         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

the  foregoing  teftimonies  prove,  that 
deified  men  were  the  immediate  objefts 
of  the  public  ettablifhed  worfhip  in  E- 
gypt,  as  they  alfo  were  in  Phenicia. 

I  am,  however,  far  from  denying, 
that,  in  the  hiltory  and  worfhip  of  thefe 
terreftrial  gods,  there  was  an  ultimate 
reference  to  the  deified  parts  and  powers 
of  nature.  And  it  is  certain,  that  the 
civil  or  vulgar  theology  was  explained 
phyfaally  by  the  learned.  But  with  their 
explanations  we  have  here  no  concern  ; 
and  therefore  I  pafs  over  at  prefent  what 
occurs  upon  this  fubje6l  in  Plutarch, 
Porphyry,  Jamblichus,  Macrobius,  and 
other  heathen  writer. 

SECT.     III. 

T  Proceed  to  fhew,  that  the  cuftom  of 
deifying   human   fpirits   prevailed  a- 

mongft    the   ASSYRIANS,    CHALDEANS, 

and  BABYLONIANS. 

Very  little  is  known  of  the  religion  of 

Affyria,  confidered  as  a  kingdom  diftinft 

from, 


in  polijhed  Nations.  185 

from  that  of  Babylon.  Both  kingdoms 
were  afterwards  united  into  one  mighty 
empire,  which  was  called  indifferently 
Affyrian  and  Babylonian u.  The  Chal 
deans  in  Babylon,  according  to  Diodo- 
rus  Siculus,  were  a  colony  of  Egyp 
tians  w,  carried  there  by  Belus,  the  fon 
of  Neptune  and  Libya,  who  granted  the 
priefls  the  fame  immunities  as  were  en 
joyed  by  thofe  in  Egypt x.  This  agrees 
with  what  Lucian  teftifies 7,  that  the 
Aflyrians  derived  their  theology  and  re 
ligious  rites  from  the  Egyptians,  and  in 
honour  of  the  gods  eredted  temples,  and 
placed  in  them  ftatues  and  images  (pro 
per  reprefentations  of  fuch  gods  as  had 
been.  men).  Now,  if  the  religion  of 
Aflyria  and  Babylon  was  derived  from 

"  The  Aflyrians  and  Babylonians  are  the  fame  peo 
ple.  Herodot.  1.  i.  0.199,  2O°-  Babylon  is  reckoned 
the  principal  city  in  AfTyria.  Ib.  c.  178.  Strabo  fays 
the  fame  thing.  L.  16.  fub  ink.  Bifhop  Lowth  on  If. 
14,  25.  Compare  the  Anc.  Univerf.  Hift.  v.  4.  p.  390. 
Svo.  1747. 

w  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  92.  ed.  WefT. 

*  Id.  ib.  p.  32.  y  De  Syr.  Dea,  p.  657. 


j  86         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Egypt,  the  former  muft  have  been  in  a 
great  meafure  the  fame  with  that  of  the 
latter,  which  confifted,  in  part,  in  the 
worfhip  of  human  fpirits. 

It  is  on  all  hands  allowed,  that  the 
Chaldean  idolatry,  called  alfo  the  Sabian, 
confifted  very  much,  at  leaft  originally, 
in  the  worfliip  of  the  fun,  moon,  and 
flars ;  which  were  conceived  to  be  feve- 
rally  animated  by  a  foul,  in  the  fame 
manner  as  the  human  body  is,  Very 
probably  they  were  alfo  thought  to  be 
inhabited  by  the  fpirits  of  illuftrious 
men :  for  it  was  an  opinion  generally 
received,  that  the  fpirits  of  fuch  men, 
when  feparated  from  their  bodies,  re 
turned  to  their  native  ikies :  and,  as  va 
rious  rites  were  ufed  to  draw  down  fouls 
from  the  ftars  into  confecrated  images 
and  fhrines z,  it  is  much  more  likely  that 
thofe  rites  fhould  refpeft  the  fouls  that 
only  inhabited  the  celeftial  orbs,  than 

2  See  Hottinger's  Hift.  Orient.  1.  i.  0.7.  p.  296.  et 
feq.  and  Pococke's  notes  on  Abul-pharai,  Specimen 
Hift.  Arab.  p.  138.  et  feq. 

fuch 


in  poHJhed  Nations.  187 

fuch  as  were  united  to  them  and  animated 
them,  as  the  human  foul  is  united  to, 
and  animates,  the  body.  Now,  their 
facred  fhrines  were  confulted  as  oracles, 
and  worfhipped  as  gods z. 

The  chief  god  of  the  Babylonians  was 
Bel.  The  queftion  here  is,  who  this 
god  was.  Bel  (called  by  the  Greeks 
Belus)  in  the  Chaldee  *  dialeft  anfvvcrs  to 
the  Hebrew  Baaly  and  to  the  Syriacb 
Beely  and  fignifies  lord.  This  term  there 
fore  might  be  applied  to  the  true  God ; 
but  it  is  commonly  given  in  fcripture  to 
thofe  fictitious  deities,  who  were  falfely 
fuppofed  to  have  dominion  over  man 
kind6. 

2  See  note  2  in  the  preceding  page. 

a  Ifaiah  xlvi.  i.  b  Ez.  iv.  8. 

c  Populus  Dei  fads  pie  eum  Baalem  fuum  vocabant, 
priufquam,  ob  vocem  illam  ad  profana  numina  fre 
quenter  nimis  traduftam,  id  ipfum  Deus  vetaret. 
Selden,  de  Diis  Syr.  Syntag.  II.  c.  i.  p.  196.  And, 
in  p.  200,  20 1.  the  fame  learned  writer  fays  :  Belus 
enim  primo  fummum  rerum  gubernatorem  denotabat  — 
graffante  vero  hominum  errore,  ad  idola  transfereba- 
turj  et  fe%> 

But 


1 8  8  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

But  was  the  Bel,  who  was  worfhip- 
ped  at  Babylon,  the  true  God  ?  A  late 
writer d  cites  from  Dr.  Cudworth  e  a  paf- 
fage  of  Berofus,  in  which  Bel  is  faid  to 
have  framed  (or  fet  in  order)  the  world, 
and  formed  (or  perfected)  the  Jlars  and 
the  fun  {.  It  is  here  alked  d,  Can  any  one 
imagine, that  he,  who  created  the  hea 
ven  and  the  earth,  received  his  name  from 
fome  petty  prince  in  the  time  of  Abraham? 
Surely  not,  fays  the  fame  writer.  It  is 
impoffible  here  to  forbear  obferving,  ift. 
That  Berofus  g  was  the  prieft  of  Belus  in 
the  time  of  Alexander.  Now,  from  the 
facred  writings  it  appears,  that  for  ma 
ny  ages  before  his  time  the  Babylonians 
were  grofs  idolaters h ;  and  confequently 

d  Fell,  p.  23.  e  p.  3I2> 

Tov    os  EytXoVf   ov 

— —  ct7roTehtffa.i  $e  ?ov  Byhov 
x.a.1  rug 


s  Extrafts  from  Berofus  were  made  by  Africanus,  A- 
pollodorus,  Alexander  Polyhiftor,  and  Abydenus.  Of 
thefe  extrads,  fragments  have  been  preferred  by  Eufe- 
bius  and  Syncellus. 

:b  Jofh.  xxiv.  2. 

not 


in  poll  foe d  Nations .  189 

not  likely  to  worfhip  the  Creator  of  hea 
ven  and  earth.  2dly.  It  is  certain  they 
did  not  worfhip  him  under  the  name  of 
Bel,  becaufe  the  Babylonian  Bel  is  fpo- 
ken  of  in  Scripture  as  a  falfe  god *. 
3dly.  No  proof  is  produced  to  (hew, 
that  the  Belus,  fpoken  of  by  Berofus  in 
the  fore- cited  paffage,  was  worfhipped 
at  all  by  the  Babylonians.  Laftly.  Had 
not  the  writer  *  alluded  to  above  been 
unacquainted  with  the  account  given  by 
Berofus  of  this  god,  he  would  not  have 
pafied  him  off  upon  his  readers  as  the 
Creator  of  heaven  and  earth.  Belus, 
according  to  Berofus  k,  (the  very  autho 
rity  appealed  to  by  Mr.  Fell*,)  cut  off 
his  own  head ;  from  the  blood  of  which, 

*  Bel   boivetk  down  ;     Ncbo  ftoopetb  ;   their  idols,   £c. 
If,  xlvi.  I.  —  Babylon  is  taken  ;     Bel  is  confounded ;  Me- 
rodach  is   broken  in  pieces.    Jerem.  1.  2.  — /  will  punijh 
Bel  in    Babylon.     Ch.  li.  44.  —  Would  God's  prophets 
fay  of  the    Creator  of  heaven   and  earth,     He  is  bowed 
down,  and  confounded  ;     and  reprefent   God  himfelf  as 
threatening  to  .punijb  him  ? 

*  Fell,  p.  23. 

k  Ap.  EufVb.  Chronicon,  p.  5.    et  Syncelli  Chrono 
graph,  p.  28. 

-when 


igo         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

when  mixed  with  the  earth  by  the  other 
gods,  men  were  formed  :  but  they  could 
not  bear  the  light,  and  therefore  he  or 
dered  one  of  the  gods  to  cut  off  his 
head,  which  he  himfelf  had  cut  off  be 
fore,  and  to  mix  the  blood  with  the 
earth,  and  from  thence  to  form  other 
men  and  animals.  This  experiment 
fucceeded  better.  There  is  nothing  in 
this  account  that  looks  like  creation,, 
as  that  word  imports  the  bringing 
into  being  what  had  no  exiftence  be 
fore  in  any  form.  Nor  indeed  could 
any  thing  be  more  repugnant  to  the 
ideas  of  Berofus,  concerning  the  genera 
tion  of  the  world,  than  the  creation  of  it. 
Leaft  of  all  was  it  poffible  for  him  to 
conceive,  that  a  god,  who  had  been  be 
headed  by  other  gods,  was  the  Creator 
of  heaven  and  earth. 

Eel  was  a  name  or  title  given  to  fe- 
veral  princes ;  particularly  to  the  founder 
of  the  Babylonian  empire.  We  have 
already  feen  *,  that  a  perfon  of  this  name 

i  p.  185. 

carried 


'in  polijhed  Nations .  191 

carried  colonies  from  Egypt  into  Baby-* 
Ionia.  Abydenus  m,  whofe  hiftory  is 
extrafted  from  the  ancient  records  of 
the  Chaldeans,  fays,  cc  it  is  reported 
<c  that  Belus  compafled  Babylon  with  a 
"  wall."  We  are  told  by  Sanchonia- 
thon %  that  Saturn  had  three  fons  born 
in  Peraea;  viz.  Saturn^  fo  called  after 
his  father,  Jupiter  Belus y  and  Apollo, 
Saturn,  the  father  of  Jupiter  °  Belus, 
was  a  Phenician  deity  ;  and  this  fon  was 
perhaps  the  Babylonian  Belus.  It  is 
certain  that  Belus,  who  built  Babylon, 
is  fometimes  fpoken  of  as  a  Syrian ;  par 
ticularly  by  Dorotheus  Sidonius  p,  cited 
by  Julius  Firmicus.  But  Paufanias  * 

m  Ap.  Eufeb.  P.  E.  1.  9.  c.  41. 

n  Ap.  eund.  P.  E.  1. 1.  p.  37.  D.  p.  38.  A. 

0  As  to  the  prefixing  the  term  Jupiter  to  Belus,  in- 
flances  of  a  fimilar  nature  frequently  occur.  We  read 
of  Jupiter  Aratrius,  above,  p.  141.  Jupiter  Ammon, 
p.  85.  More  examples  will  occur  in  the  fequel.  See 
alfo  Sir  If.  Newton's  Chronology,  p.  150,  152,  162. 
and  Jac.  Perizon.  -^Egypt.  Orig.  torn.  i.  p,  83. 

*  1.4.  c.  23.  p.  337. 

fays, 


192          Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

fays,  that  he  had  his  name  from  Belus 
an  Egyptian.  Phenicia  being  fometimes 
confidered  as  belonging  to  Egypt,  there 
may  be  no  contradiftion  between  Pau- 
fanias  and  Dorotheas.  I  do  not  take 
upon  me  to  determine  abfolutely  who 
Belus  was  ;  nor  do  I  here  inquire,  whe 
ther  he  be  the  Nimrod  or  the  Pul  fpo- 
ken  of  in  Scripture r.  It  is  fufficient  for 
our  purpofe,  that  there  was  fuch  a  per- 
fon,  and  that  he  was  the  founder  of  the 
Babylonian  empire.  Nebuchadnezzar s 
fpeaks  of  himfelf  as  defcended  from 
him  >  and  he  is  referred  to  by  Virgil ', 
not  as  Dido's  father,  but  as  one  of  her 

r  Jac.  Perizon.  Origin.  Babylon,  torn.  2.  p.  152.  et 
feq.  and  Freinfnemius,  in  his  notes  on  Quintus  Cur- 
tius,  1.5.  p.  310,  311.  attempt  to  prove,  that  Belus 
was  the  Nimrod  fpoken  of  Gen.  x.  8.  But  the  authors 
of  the  Univerfal  Hifl.  v.  4.  p.  352.  think  that  Belus 
was  the  fame  as  Pul.  See  alfo  p.  309.  in  the  note. 

9  O  re  Br/Ao?  EJLCO?  w^oyovog,  >j   ft  BacrAsia  B>jAtf$.     Eufeb. 

P,  Ev.  1.9.  0.41.  p.  456. 

1  Implevitque  mero  pateram,  quam  Belus  et  omnes 
A  Belo  foliti.  »•  ^Eri,  I.  733, 

remote 


in  polijbed  Nations.  1 93 

remote  anceftors  u.  Servius,  on  the 
place,  makes  him  the  firft  king  of  Af- 
fyria. 

Let  us  confider  what  evidence  there  is., 
that  this  Belus  (whether  he  was  an  E- 
gyptian,  a  Phenician*  or  a  Babylonian) 
was  deified  after  his  death.  If  he  be,  as 
fome  fuppofe,  the  Nimrod  of  the  Bible  v, 
he  was,  as  we  have  already  fhewnx, 
ranked  amongft  the  gods  by  the  Per- 
fians,  who  fucceeded  to  his  empire  :  a 
plain  proof  that  he  was  firft  worihipped 
at  Babylon.  Dionyfius  y  expreffly  in- 

u  This  is  implied  in  the  expreffion,  omnes  a  Belo,  all 
the  dependents  of  Belus.  Between  Dido  and  her  own  fa 
ther  none  intervened. 

w  This  hypothecs  is  favoured  by  the  language  of 
Ammianus  Marcellinus,  1.  xxiii.  c.  6.  p.  286.  Baby 
lon,  cujus  moenia  bitumine  Semiramis  ftruxit  ;  arcem 
enim  antiquiffimus  rex  condidit  Belus.  — -  ^Elian  calls 
him,  emphatically,  TOV  Byhov  TOV  agxpuov,  Belum  ilium 
antiquum.  Var.  Hift.  1.  13.  c.  3.  And  Orofius,  II.  6. 
Babyloniarn  a  Nimrod  gigante  fundatam  ;  a  Nino  Vel 
Semiramide  reparatam. 

x  Above,  p.  72. 

y   Mryav   ^/,ov    eicra.ro    Er^a.      Dionyf.  Tltpvyw.    C.  25.  ' 
V.  825.  —  This  temple  of  Belus  was  afterwards  adorned 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  Jofeph.  Antiq.  1.  10.  c.'u.  §.  i. 

O  forms 


194         Worfhtp  of  human  Spirits 

forms  us,  that  a  temple  was  erefted  to 
him  by  Semiramis  in  that  city.  From 
the  defcription,  given  of  the  temple  of 
Belus  by  Herodotus z,  it  appears  that  it 
was  built  in  the  form  of  the  Egyptian 
pyramids a.  Now,  as  the  latter  were  fe- 
pulchres  b  as  well  as  temples,  the  former 
muft  be  confidered  in  this  double  view. 
The  image  of  Jupiter  Belus,  which  was 
placed  on  a  throne,  at  a  table,  in  the 
chapel  which  flood  below,  within  the 
temple,  clearly  fhews  who  was  repre- 
fented  by  it.  And,  though  there  was  a 
temple  in  the  uppermoft  tower,  in  which 
no  image  was  placed,  (from  which  cir- 
cumftance  fome  learned  writers  c  have 
concluded,  that  "  the  honour  of  the 
"  temple  of  Belus  was  meant  to  be  di- 
"  vided  between  him  and  the  true  god,") 
yet  in  the  uppermoft  temple  there  was  a 
table,  a  bed,  and  a  woman  chofen  by 

2  Lib.  i.  c.  181. 

a  Sir  If.  Newton's  Chronology,  p.  327,  328. 

b  See  below,  ch.  3. 

c  Anc.  Univerfal  Hift.  vol.  4.  p.  352. 

the 


in  polifhed  Nations*  195 

the  god  himfelf,  who  was  fuppofed  to 
come  by  night  and  lie  in  the  bed d.  Could 
this  god  be  confidered  by  the  Chaldeans 
as  that  eternal  Spirit  who  created  the 
univerfe  ?  Were  not  the  accommoda 
tions  provided  for  him  more  fuitable  to 
their  ideas  of  human  nature  ?  Certain 
it  is  in  faft,  that  it  was  to  deified  men 
that  the  like  provifion  was  made  in  other 
countries  e. 

Were  it  poffible  ftill  to  doubt,  whe 
ther  the  founder  of  the  AfTyrian  and  Ba 
bylonian  empire  was  worfhipped  in  the 

d  Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  182. 

e  In  the  temple  of  the  Tripbilian  Jupiter  y  who  is  re- 
prefented  as  having  been  a  man,  there  was  a  bed  and  a 
table.     Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5.    p.  368.    ed.  Weff.  —  The 
keeper  of  the  temple  of  Hercules  provided  for  him  a  bed, 
a  fupper,  and  the  beautiful  Laurentia.     Plutarch.  Vit. 
Rooiuli,    p.  20.   —  In  Indoftan    the  Heathens   fupply 
their  idol  Jagannat  with  the  fairefl  virgin  they  can  pro 
cure.  Bernier's  Memoirs,  torn.  3.  p.  112.  Engl.  Tranf- 
lat.  —  And,  in    the  temple  of  Jupiter,  at  Thebes   in 
Egypt,  there  was  a  woman  who  was  fuppofed  to  be  vi- 
fited   by  the  god  at  night,    agreeably   to  the  account 
given   of  Bel  us   by   the   Babylonians.     Herodot.  1.  u, 
c*  181.  Compare  Strabo,  1.  17.  p,  1171. 

O  2  temple 


196         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

temple  of  Belus  at  Babylon,  I  might 
appeal  to  Eujebius  f,  who  tells  us,  that 
Belus,  the  firft  king  of  the  Affyrians, 
was  deified  after  his  death  :  to  Jerome  g, 
who,  in  more  places  than  one,  fpeaks 
of  him  as  having  been  confecrated  and 
ranked  amongft  the  gods  by  his  fon  Ni- 
nus  :  and  to  Laftantius h,  and  the  au 
thors  cited  by  him,  who  affirm,  that 
Belus  was  worfhipped  by  the  AfTyrians 
and  Babylonians *.  I  do  not  affirm, 

that 

f  Eufeb.  Chronicon,  1.  i.  p.  9.  Tharse  anno  28.  Af- 
fyriorum  rex  primus  Belus  mortuus  eft,  quern  Aflyrii 
deum,  et  alii  dicunt  Saturnum. 

£  Idolum  Baal,  five  Bel,  et,  ut  apertius  dicam,  Beli, 
Affyriorum  religio  eft,  confecrata  a  Nino,  Beli  filio,  in 
nonorem  patris.  Hieronymus  in  Ezek.  c.  23.  —  Ninus 
in  tantam  pervenit  gloriam,  ut  patrem  fuum  Belum  re- 
ferret  in  deum,  qui  Hebraice  dicitur  Vl.  Hunc  Sido- 
nii  et  Phcsnices  appellant  ^pi.  Id.  in  Ofea,  c.  2. 

h  Belus,  quern  Babylonii  et  Airyrii  colunt,  antiquior 
Trojano  bello  fuifie  invenitur  trecentis  viginti  duobus 
annis :  Belum  autem  Saturno  asqualem  fuifle,  et  u- 
trumque  uno  tempore  adolevifle.  Ladant.  Div.  Inftitut. 
1.  i.  c.  23. 

1  A  gentleman,  who  often  afTumes  the  language  of  a 
perfon  who  has  a  comprehenfive  view  of  the  fubjeft  on 

which 


in  polijhed  Nations.  1 97 

that  the  term  Be/  was  never  explained 
phyfically,  and  applied  to  the  fun,  by 
learned  men,  as  Ofiris k  alfo  fometimes 
was  :  for  the  ancients  gave  the  names  of 
their  deified  kings  to  the  heavenly  bo 
dies  J.  But  the  temple  of  Babylon  was 
erected  in  honour  of  a  man  who  founded 
the  Babylonian  empire,  agreeably  to  the 
cuftom  of  the  Heathens  in  the  like  cafes. 
And  this  Belus  was  the  god  whom  the 
Babylonians  principally  worlhipped"1. 

As  Jupiter  Belus  was  the  chief  god  of 
the  Babylonians,  fo  their  principal  god- 

which  he  writes,  roundly  affirms,  that  it  is  not  in  my 
power  to  prove,  that  religious  honours  were  e<ver  paid  to  p 
deceafed  man  under  the  name  of  Eel.  Fell,  p.  24.  Some 
however  may  doubt,  whether  his  knowledge  of  his  fub- 
jeft  be  altogether  anfwerable  to  the  import  of  his  lan 
guage.  He  feems  to  have  known  as  little  of  the  Indian 
Bel  as 'of  the  Babylonian.  Cicero,  when  reckoning  up 
the  feveral  gods  who  bore  the  name  of  Hercules,  fays, 
Quintus  in  India,  qui  Belus  dicitur.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3. 
c.  16. 

k  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  14.  ed.  WefT. 

1  See  above,  p.  135,   161,   162. 

m  Oi»  ^aXira  Sewv  TV-WO-I  B«/3y?u;vK>».  Arrian.  Exped. 
Alex,  1.  3.  p.  127.  ed.  Gronov. 

O  3  defs 


198         Worjhip  ofhunian  Spirits 

defs  was  Venus  or  Mylitta  n.  She  was 
the  fame  with  the  Perfian  Mitra  %  the 
Phenician  Aftarte  p,  and  the  great  Sy 
rian  goddefs  q  ;  and  therefore  was  cer 
tainly  worfhipped  under  a  human  cha- 
rafter.  The  title  of  celeftial  Venus  ?  was 
probably  given  her  becaufe  fhe  was  wor 
fhipped  in  the  planet  of  that  name,  or 
in  the  moon.  She  is  fometimes  called 
Juno  5  under  which  name  fhe  was  a- 
dored  by  the  Sidonians  and  Carthagini 
ans8.  Some  have  thought,  that  this 
goddefs  was  the  famed  Semiramis  *,  who, 
haying  extended  her  empire  over  a  large 
part  of  the  Eaft,  was  likely  to  receive 
divine  honours  from  the  nations  of  Afia, 
As  to  her  being  worfhipped  under  both 

n  Herodot.  1.  I.  c.  131.  cited  above,  p.  48. 
0  Above,  p.  68.  P  P.  142. 

*  See  the  next  feftion. 


i;  JtaTEf7  eretaai    tnv  ovgaviav. 
Attic,  c.  14.  p.  36. 

8  Hie  templum  Junoni  ingens  Sidonia  Dido 

Condebat.  •  -  Virgil.  ^En.  I.  446. 
1  Anc.  Univerfal  Hill.  vol.  4.  p.  359,  360. 


fexes, 


in  polijhed  Nations.  199 

fexes,  they  account  for  this  circum- 
ftance  in  the  charafter  of  the  queen  of 
Babylon,  which  was  that  of  a  martial 
heroine  and  an  a  abandoned  proftitute. 
Hence  fhe  might  be  confidered  both  as 
a  god  of  war,  and  the  patronefs  of  plea- 
fure. 

The  Affyrians  and  Babylonians  had 
feveral  other  gods  of  mortal  origin  ; 
particularly  Thuras  or  T'burras^  who  fuc- 
ceeded  Ninus,  He  was  an  eminent  war 
rior,  and  was  called  Mars,  after  the  pla 
net  of  that  name,  (and  w  Baaly)  to  whom 
the  firft  pillar  was  erefted x.  Adrammekch 
and  Anammelecb  were  Babylonian  deities, 
to  whom  human  facrifices  were  offered  y. 
The  names  of  forne  of  their  other  idols 

u  Athenagoras,  (Legat.  p.  119.)  calls  Semiramis, 
Tiayvo?  yvw  x*i  /xjaKpo^,  libidinofa  et  fanguinaria.  As 
to  the  former  part  of  her  cKara&er,  fee  Agathias,  p,  5  9. 
ed.  1594. 

w  Slvcpcio-oiv  UVTQV  BaaA.    Suidas,  in  voc. 

x  QTIVL  A^EJ  ai/£f»7crav  TTQUTW  r»3^*?v  ot 
§tw  7r£o<rtH.vvti»  awrov,  xai  fuq  ?%<;  vvv  xaAycri 
Siov,  o  EJ-'  fttvHgtxr/i'JL'O^CEi/ov  Agrjc,  fruXtf^uv  $£0$.  ChrOIHCOn 

^Alexandrinum,  p.  88. 
y  2  Kings  xvii.  31. 

O  4  are 


aoo         Worjbip  of  human  Spirits 

are  preferved ;  but  it  is  needlefs  to  de^ 
fcend  into  more  particulars,  becaufe 
their  religion  muft  have  been  the  fame 
with  that  of  the  Egyptians,  Phenicians, 
and  Syrians,  of  which  a  larger  account 
is  given  by  ancient  authors.  As  they 
deified  their  fovereigns  while  living  z,  we 
might  from  this  circumflance  alone  have 
inferred,  that  they  worfhipped  them 
when  dead.  The  teftimonies  that  have 
been  produced  ferve  to  fhew,  that  dead 
men  and  women  were  the  more  imme 
diate  objefls  of  the  public  devotion  at 
Babylon,  and  were  indeed  honoured  as 
their  greateft  gods. 

SECT.     IV. 

T  Come  now  to  fhew,  that  human  fpi- 
rits  were  deified  by  the  SYRIANS. 
At  Hierapolis  flood  the  temple  of  the 
great  Syrian  goddefs,  who  was  held  in, 
high  veneration  by  the  Egyptians,  In 
dians,  Ethiopians,    Medes,   Armenians, 

z  Dan.  iii. 

and 


in  polijhed  Nations.  201 

and  Babylonians  a.  In  this  temple,  as 
we  learn  from  Lucian  b,  were  placed  the 
ftatues  of  many  heathen  gods,  fuch  as 
the  Greeks  called  by  the  names  of  their 
own  greateft  deities,  Jupiter,  Juno,  Mi 
nerva,  Venus,  Apollo,  Lucina  or  Di 
ana,  Mercury,  and  others  :  but  there 
was  no  ftatue  of  the  fun  or  moon,  be- 
caufe  they  deemed  it  abfurd  to  make  re- 
prefentations  of  gods  that  were  fo  con- 
fpicuous  and  refplendent,  though  very 
reafonable,  on  the  other  hand,  to  form 
ftatues  of  fuch  as  were  invifible  c.  From 
this  curious  pafTage  it  appears,  that  the 
gods  of  Syria  were  of  two  forts  :  the 
one  vifible,  particularly  the  fun  and 
moon  ;  the  other  invifible,  that  is,  hu 
man  fpirits,  or  fuch  deities  as  cprref- 
ponded  to  the  idea  the  Greeks  had  formed 

a  Lucian,    de  Dea  Syr.    p.  676. 
b  P.  675.   et  feq. 


iocwoc. 
£e  x.cu 


tu  nt^  (pcuvopsvoiiTi  i   Lucian,  p.  676,  677. 

concerning 


2O2         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

concerning  thofe  objefts  of  worfhip  that 
originally  belonged  to  the  human  race, 
and  were  reprefented  by  ftatues.  It  can 
not  reafonably  be  pretended,  that  Ju 
piter,  Juno,  and  the  other  Grecian  dei 
ties  here  enumerated,  were  natural  gods ; 
becaufe  the  former  are  diftinguiihed 
from  the  latter.  Apollo  and  Diana,  for 
example,  cannot  here  denote  the  furf  and 
moon ;  for  the  former  had  ftatues  as 
their  reprefentatives,  but  not  the  latter. 
And  it  is  very  remarkable,  that,  even  fo 
late  as  the  age  of  Lucian,  no  ftatues 
were  erefted  to  the  natural  gods  in  Sy 
ria  ;  of  which  circumftance  notice  will 
be  taken  in  the  fequel. 

As  to  the  great  Syrian  goddefs  her^ 
felf,  in  whofe  honour  the  temple  was  e^ 
reeled,  fhe  could  not  be  a  natural  di-» 
vinity  j  as  the  ftatue  placed  between  Ju 
piter  and  Juno  was  probably  erefted  in 
her  honour.  She  feems  to  have  been 
the  fame  with  the  Aftarte  of  the  Pheni- 
cians,  and  the  celeftial  Venus,  fo  often 
fpoken  of  above,  and  to  whom  there  was 

an 


In  policed  Nations*  203 

an  ancient  temple  erected  at  Afcalon> 
which  is  called  by  Herodotus  d  a  city  of 
Syria.  Semiramis  was  worfhipped  in 
this  country  %  and  is  thought  by  fome 
to  be  the  Syrian  goddefs  herfelf,  and  the 
fame  with  the  Derceto  of  Afcalon  f. 

Hiftory  informs  us,  that  Belus  was 
worfhipped  in  Syria g,  as  well  as  at  Ba 
bylon.  Adad  or  Hadad  was  a  name 
common  to  all  the  Syrian  kings h.  One 
of  them,  whom  Sanchoniathon  calls  A- 
dody  reigned  in  Phenicia,  and  was  ftiled, 
king  of  the  gods  *  $  which  is  a  full  proof, 

£  Lib.  i.  c.  105. 

e  She  made  a  law,  that  the  Syrians  fhould  worfhip 
her  as  a  goddefs,  in  preference  to  all  the  other  divini 
ties.  Lucian,  de  Syr.  Dea,  p.  678. 

f  Anc.  Univerfal  Hift.  vol.  4.  p.  255,  259.  —  We 
learn  from  Lucian,  p.  676.  that  the  ftatue  between  Ju 
piter  and  Juno,  with  a  golden  dove  on  it's  head,  was 
thought  by  fome  to  be  Semiramis. 

8  O  Zer^,  o  BjjAo?  ovc^a^o^Ej/o?,  xat  EV  ?YI  Avaptiot,  rr,<;  £y- 
gia;  T^WJIA£VO?.  Xiphilin.  in-  Caracalla,  in  Excerpt,  e 
Dione,  1.  78.  p.  884.  ed.  Hanov. 

h  Probably  becaufe  they  confecrated  all  their  kings 
into  gods, 

J  A^o?,  ^acrjAtvs  $£wv.  Sanchoniathon,  ap.  Eufeb» 
P,  Ev,  l.i.  p.  38. 

that, 


204         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

that,  though  the  term  Adad  is  explained 
phyfieally  by  Macrobius k,  and  applied 
to  the  fun,  the  chief  natural  god,  yet  it 
was  underftood  hiftorically  by  the  peo 
ple,  and  applied  to  their  chief  hero-god. 

Both  Benhadad  and  Hazael  were  wor- 
fhipped  by  the  Syrians,  and  reprefented 
to  be  of  far  greater  antiquity  than  they 
really  were1:  a  very  common  praftice 
with  the  Heathens  on  other  occafions. 

The  Syrians,  in  honour  of  a  king  cal 
led  Damafcus^  (from  whom  the  city  of 
Damafcus  derived  it's  name,)  held  fa- 
cred  the  fepulchre  of  his  wife  Arathes  as 
a  temple,  and  regarded  her  as  a  goddefs 
entitled  to  the  moft  facred  worfhip  m. 

What,  therefore,  has  been  before 
proved  concerning  the  Aflyrians,  Baby^ 
lonians,  Phenicians,  and  Egyptians,  is 
alfo  true  of  the  Syrians  5  viz.  that  they 

k  Saturnal.  1.  I.  c.  23.  p.  217. 

1  Jofeph.  Antiq.  1.  9.  c.  4.  §.  6. 

m  Nomen  urbi  a  Damafco  rege  inditum;  in  cujus 
honorem  Syrii  fepulchrum  Arathis  uxoris  ejus  pro  tem- 
plo  coluere  ;  deamque  exinde  fandiflimse  religionis  ha- 
bent.  Jullin.  1.  36.  c.  2. 

deified 


in  poliJJjed  Nations.  205 

deified  dead  men  and  women.  The  fafts 
produced  above  farther  prove,  that  thefe 
gods  of  mortal  origin  were  the  more  im 
mediate  and  the  principal  obje£ts  of  the 
public  and  national  worfhip. 

I  have  now  finifhed  what  I  intended 
to  offer  concerning  the  objefts  of  public 
worfhip  in  the  eaftern  nations  •>  and  have 
fhewn,  that  thefe  nations,  whether  bar 
barous  or  polifhed,  (efpecially  thofe  of 
the  moft  diftinguifhed  fame,  fuch  as  A- 
rabia,  Phenicia,  Syria,  Caria,  Lycia, 
Cilicia,  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Sarmatia, 
Armenia,  Chaldea,  Babylonia,  AfTyria, 
Perfia,  Parthia,  Media,  India,  Scythia, 
China,  Japan,  and  others,)  though  they 
might  acknowledge  elementary  and  fide- 
real  deities,  did  neverthelefs  worfhip  alfo 
human  fpirits.  But  fo  entirely  unac 
quainted  was  a  late  writer  with  the 
proofs  of  this  point  here  produced,  (to 
which  others  might  be  added,)  that  he" 
confidently  affirms,  "  divine  honours 

n  Fell,  p.  7. 

cc  were 


206         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

"  were  not  paid  to  deceafed  heroes  in 
<c  the  eaftern  nations."  Left  his  readers 
fhould  think  there  were  any  exceptions, 
he  aflerts  °,  that  "  the  eaftern  nations, 
"  whether  barbarous  or  polifhed,  paid 
<c  no  religious  honours  to  deceafed  men." 
The  gentleman  has  ftiewn  himfelf  e- 
qually  unacquainted  with  the  religious 
ftate  of  the  ancient  nations  of  Europe 
and  Africa  ;  for,  notwithftanding  what 
has  been  proved  to  the  contrary,  he  af- 
£rms,  that  <c  the  cuftom  of  the  Greeks, 
"  in  paying  religious  honours  to  de- 
"  parted  heroes,  was  defpifed  by  ALL 
"  the  great  nations  amongft  the  Hea- 
"  thens,  the  Romans  exceptedV  It  is 
unbecoming  in  any  one  to  fpeak  upon  a 
fubjeft,  of  which  he  is  ignorant,  in  the 
decifive  language  of  certain  knowledge. 
In  matters  of  fa<5l  this  is  more  culpable 
than  in  fpeculative  points ;  for,  in  the 
former  cafe,  we  do  not  rely  on  the  judge 
ment,  but  on  the  veracity,  of  the  fpeaker, 
prefuming  he  would  not  affirm  with 

0  Fell,  p.  14.  f  P.  29. 

confidence 


in  polijhed  Nations.  207 

confidence  what  he  did  not  know  to  be 
true. 

SECT.     V. 

Shewing  that  human  Spirits  were  deified  by 
the  GREEKS. 

TT  was  elfewhere q  proved,  that  the  na 
tural  gods,  the  fun  and  moon  in  par 
ticular,  were  adored  by  the  Greeks,  as 
well  as  by  the  Barbarians.  But  the  pre- 
fent  queftion  concerns  only  their  other 
objects  of  worfhip. 

All,  who  have  any  knowledge  of  the 
religion  of  the  Greeks,  know,  that  they 
worfhipped  the  firft  founders  of  ftates 
and  cities r  j  thofe  alfo  who  died  in  de^ 
fence  of  their  country s ;  and  fuch  as 

were 

s  DifTert.  on  Mir,  p.  172.  note  f. 

*  The  Cherfonefians  facrifice  to  Miltiades,  u$  o  to^, 
cwpj.    Herodot.  1.  6.  c.  38. 

*  Pericles,  fpeaking  of  thofe  who  fell  in  the  battle  at 
Samos,  fays,  they  were  become  immortal  as  the  gods,  «x$a- 
totrttq  eAfye  ytyonvcu,   jtaSaTreg  T»S  Siy?.      He  adds,     We  do 
not  fee  the  gods  tbsmfelvts  5    (which  cannot  be  underitood 

of 


208         Worflrip  of  human  Spirits 

were  greatly  diftinguifhed  by  their  ta 
lents  and  exploits '.  Some  of  thefe  il- 
luftrious  perfons  were  worfhipped  only 
in  the  particular  ftates  to  which  they 
belonged u  j  and  others  by  Greece  in  ge 
neral  w.  It  would  be  tedious,  and  it  is 
unneceflary,  to  produce  the  various 
proofs  of  the  deification  of  men  in  this 
country,  which  occur  continually  in  He- 

of  the  natural  gods;  fee  above,  p.  201.  note  c ;)  but,  by 
thofc  honours  and  good  things  which  they  receive  from  us,  <we 
declare  our  belief  of  their  being  immortal.  It  is  juft  the 
f afrit  with  refpeft  to  thcfe  who  die  for  their  country  ;  ra,vv 
ovv  vTrctgxin  KOC.I  TO»J  we^  T»JS  TTUT^CX;  a7ro$av»cru'.  Plutarch. 
Vit,  Periclis,  p.  156.  D.  E.  —  See  the  paflage  from 
Plato,  cited  in  Diflert.  on  Mir.  p.  191.  note  u. 

T  Silch  as  the  Theban  Hercules.  Cleades  intercedes 
with  Alexander  to  fpare  the  city  of  Thebes,  which  had 
•not  only  produced  men  but  gods,  and  had  given  birth  to 
Hercules.  Juftin.  1.  xi.  c.  4.  —  Concerning  Hercules, 
and  alfo  concerning  Caftor  and  Pollux,  fee  Ifocrat. 
Opera,  torn.  2.  p.  17,  18.  ed.  Battie. 

u  At.  Sparta  they  facrificed  every  year  to  Lycurgus, 
•>$  SEW.  Plutarchi  Numa,  p.  59.  B.  —  The  Athenians 
honoured Thefeus  w?  «jgw«.  Plutarchi  Thefeus,  p.  17.  A. 

w  Jam  vero  in  Grcecia  multos  habent  ex  hominibus 
deos;  Alabiindum,  Alabandi ;  Tenedi,  Tenem;  Leu- 
cotheam,  quae  fuit  Ino,  et  ejus  Palaimonem  filiuitt, 
tun&a  Gratia.  Cicero  de  Nat.  Deor,  1.  3.  €.15. 

rodotus, 


in  poliJJjed  Nations  .  209 

Yodotus,  Paufanias,  Plutarch,  and  other 
Greek  writers.  The  law  ordained,  that 
the  gods,  the  demons,  and  the  heroes, 
fhould  be  worfhipped  according  to  their 
refpeflive  ranks  x. 

The  only  queftion  that  can  admit  of 
a  debate  is,  whether  the  twelve  great 
gods  of  Greece,  or,  as  they  are  fome- 
times  called,  the  gods  of  the  greater  na 
tions  y,  were  of  human  extraft.  I  fhall 


cr£/3a  ogaov' 


Aurea  Carmina,  v.  I,  2,  3. 

See  what  is  faid  concerning  the  immortal  gods,  p.  207. 
note  9,  and  what  occurs  in  the  next  feclion  concerning 
the  ancient  gods  of  heaven. 

Tj^a  to  $cu<j.oi/iov  «st  fjisv,  pt&irdt.  ^a  pzroc,  TJJ?  TT&Aewj*  Sra 
ya-(>  oo§etc  &p.o6  re  T<H£  ^£0*5  3t/eOj  xaj  rotj  >O/AC»£  EJW^EVEH'. 
Ifocrat.  Opera,  torn.  i.  p.  23.  To  ^aj/xoj/jov,  i.e.  Tray  TO 
wragj3a»ro»  T»J»  *>3j*«riK!»  (pvo-tv,  five  femidei  illi  lint,  iive 
heroes,  -  inter  deos  relati.  Wolfii  not.  in  loc.  — 
Draco  revived  the  following  law  at  Athens  :  Lex  efto 
antiquiffima,  aeternasque  aucloritatis  in  Attica,  vene- 
randos  efle  deos  atque  heroas  patrios  et  indigenas.  Sam, 
Petit.  Comment,  in  Leg.  Attic,  p.  69. 

?  Dii  majorum  gentium. 


affiga 


2 1  o         War/hip  of  human  Spirits 

affign  thofe  reafons  which  incline  me  to 
belieye  they  were. 

I.  The  Greeks  derived  their  religion 
from  Phenicia  and  Egypt  ;  more  efpe- 
cially  from  the  latter.  Egypt,  accord 
ing  to  Lucian  z,  was  the  country  that 
firft  acquired  the  knowledge  of  the  gods. 
His  teftimony  is  confirmed  by  other 
writers a.  Herodotus  reprefents  the  E- 
gyptians  as  the  Jirfl  <who  gave  names  to  the 
twelve  gods,  and  erected  altars,  images,, 
and  temples b. 

From  Egypt  and  Phenieia  religion 
was  eafily  propagated  over  the  weftern 
world,  partly  by  that  intercourfe  be 
tween  them  which  commerce  created,, 
but  principally  by  colonies.  Many  of 
the  firft  princes  of  Greece  were  born  ei- 

2  Above,  p.  146.  note  k. 

a  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  1.22.  c.  16.  p. 268.  fays: 
Hie  (fell,  in  ^Egypto)  primum  homines  longe  ante  a- 
lios  ad  varia  relligionum  incunabula  (ut  dicitur)  per- 
venerunt.  —  Concerning  the  high  antiquity  of  the  hea 
then  gods,  fuch  as  built  their  cities,  fee  Diodorus  Si- 
culus,  p.  16.  ed.  WefT. 

b  Herodot,  1.  2,  0,4, 

ther 


'in  polijhed  Nations.  2 1 1 

ther  in  Phenicia  or  Egypt,  fuch  as  Cad 
mus,  Cecrops,  Danaus,  Ere&heus,  and 
others  ;  and  brought  with  them  the  re 
ligion  of  their  own  country,  and  planted 
it  in  the  refpeftive  places  in  which  they 
fettled.  The  Athenians  are  thought  to 
have  been  a  colony  from  the  Egyptian 
Sais ;  and  reprefented  Minerva  by  the 
fame  armed  image  as  was  done  in  that  city. 
Ereftheus,  when  made  king  of  Athens, 
introduced  there  the  Eleufinian  myfte- 
iies,  framed  after  the  cuftom  of  Egypt. 
So  great  was  the  fame  of  this  country 
for  learning  and  religion,  that  many 
eminent  perfons  reforted  to  it  for  in- 
ftfuftion.  Orpheus,  Mufaeus,  Melam- 
pus,  and  others,  who  went  there  with 
this  view,  brought  away  moft  of  it's 
myfteries  and  facred  ceremonies  -y  fo  that 
there  was  no  difference  between  the  myf 
teries  of  Bacchus  and  Ofiris,  or  of  Ce 
res  and  Ifis,  but  the  names  of  thofe  dei 
ties  in  whofe  honour  they  were  inftitu- 
P  2  ted. 


2  1  2         Worflnp  of  human  Spirits 

tedc.  Indeed  the  very  names  of  the 
twelve  gods  d,  and  of  almoft  all  the  Gre 
cian  gods  e,  were  originally  derived  from 
Egypt,  according  to  Herodotus.  To 
the  fame  country,  according  to  this  hif- 
torian,  the  Greeks  were  endebted  for 
their  oracles,  facred  feftivals,  and  many 
religious  rites  f. 

Had  we  been  only  informed,  in  gene 
ral  terms,  that  Greece  derived  it's  reli 
gion  from  Egypt,  we  mult  have  infer 
red,  that  the  principal  objefts  of  wor- 
fliip  in  the  former  country  were  of  the 
fame  kind  with  thofe  in  the  latter  ;  and 
confequently  were  of  human  extra6l. 
But,  when  we  are  farther  told,  that  the 
number  of  the  great  gods  in  both  coun 
tries  was  twelve,  and  that  the  names  of 

e  Concerning  the  feveral  foregoing  particulars,  fee 
Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  I.  p.  32,  33,  34,  107,  109,  no. 
ed.  Weff.  Platon.  Crit.  p.  no.  Plutarch.  If.  et  Ofir. 

P-  354- 


shiyov   TT^TS? 

»      Herodot. 


€,4. 

e  Id.  0.50.  f  Cap.  51,  54-58. 

the 


in  polijbed  Nations  .  2-13 

the  gods  of  Greece  were  borrowed  from 
thofe  of  Egypt,  we  gain  new  proofs  that 
the  gods  of  both  countries  were  either 
the  very  fame  *  or  fimilar  ;  that  is,  dei 
fied  men.  If  the  reprefentation,  made 
of  the  gods  by  images  in  human  form, 
pointed  out  their  relation  to  mankind  in 
Egypt,  the  like  reprefentation  of  them 
in  Greece,  in  imitation  of  Egypt,  mufl 
anfwer  the  fame  end.  If  oracles  in  one 
country  were  afcribed  to  human  fpirits, 
they  muft  be  afcribed  to  fuch  fpirits  in 
the  other.  The  rites  of  ivcrjhip  amongft 
the  Heathens  always  bore  a  relation  to 
the  peculiar  character  of  the  gods  in 
whofe  honour  they  were  inftituted  ;  and 
therefore  the  fame  rites  could  not  be  per 
formed  in  Egypt  to  dead  men  and  wo 
men,  and  in  Greece  to  the  natural  gods. 
And  if  the  myfteries  in  one  country  dif- 
clofed  the  earthly  origin  of  the  gods, 


Herodotus  fays,   Icn?  &  EJ-'J  *«ra  rw 

Lib.  2.  c.  59.  —  As  liis  was  called,  in  the 
Greek  language,  Demeter,  fo  Orus  was  called  Apollo; 
Bubaflis,  Diana,  c.  156.  and  Oiiris,  Bacchus,  c.  144. 

P  3  thev 


214         Worfhlp  of  human  Spirits 

they  muft  do  fo  in  the  other.  (And  we 
know  this  to  be  the  cafe  with  regard  to 
both.) 

What  is  thus  eftablifhed  by  the  plaineft 
reafoning  is  confirmed  by  the  cleareft 
teftimony.  Eufebius,  fpeaking  of  that 
nioft  corrupt  fpecies  of  idolatry,  which 
fucceeded  the  worfhip  of  the  natural 
gods,  (by  which  he  means  that  of  dead 
men,)  reprefents  it  as  fpringing  up  firft 
in  Phenicia,  and  foon  afterwards  in  E- 
gypt  ;  and  immediately  adds,  that  the 
myfteries  of  both  countries  were  com 
municated  to  the  Greeks  by  Cadmus  and 
Orpheus  h.  And  Sanchoniathon1  fays, 
that  the  cuftom  of  deifying  kings  and 
the  benefactors  of  mankind,  and  of  wor~ 
fnipping  them  as  the  greatejl  gods>  which 
obtained  amongft  the  Phenicians  and 
Egyptians  in  the  moil  early  ages  of  the 


QOIUKVV,   eiTcc.  Aiyvjmvv,   KTeaca^tvuv  T'/I<;  Tr 

(CV   G)0t<ri   TTMTOV   Op^ga     TOV   Tcty^tfj     /X,£T«.r«<7'C4f*£>'Ol'    TOt,    TfO,Q     At- 

yvTrnoii;,    EAA'/:^*    ftETaoy/at  [Avr*)(>ict,t    ua7ri%  «f   xaj  Ka^/xov  TO- 
<J>omxfx#  rot;  a-vroiq  cx.'y&ytw.    Eufeb.  P.  Ev.   p.  17,  1  8.  — 
(Concerning  Cadmus,  fee  Nonni  Dionyflaca,  p.  79,  80. 
!  Cited  above,  p.  135, 

world^ 


in  policed  Nations.  2 1 5 

world,  was  from  them  derived  to  other 
nations.  Now,  amongft  thefe  nations, 
Greece,  as  we  have  feen,  was  certainly 
included,  Confequently,  the  twelve  gods 
of  Greece,  like  the  twelve  gods  of  Egypt 
and  the  Cabirs  of  Phenicia,  were  of  mor 
tal  origin. 

II.  The  fame  point  may  be  farther 
proved  by  the  teftimony  of  Herodotus, 
who  was  certainly  well  acquainted  with 
the  Grecian  obje£ts  of  worfhip.  This 
hiftorian  k  tells  us,  that  the  reafon  why 
the  Perfians  did  not  ereft  temples,  al 
tars,  and  images,  to  the  gods,  (which 
the  Greeks  were  known  to  do,)  was,  in 
his  opinion,  their  not  believing,  as  the 
Greeks  did,  that  the  gods  are  of  the  race  of 
men.  This  teftimony,  which  v/as  urged 
elfewhere ',  is  excepted  againft  by  Dr. 
JBlackwell m,  and  after  him  by  another 
writer"  j  but  without  any  juft  ground. 

k  L.  i.  0.131.   cited  above,  p.  47. 

1  Divert,  on  Mir.  p.  186,   187. 

01  Mythol.  p.  217.  n  Fell,  p.  7,  27. 

P  4  The 


216         Worjbip  of  human  Spirits 

The  Greek  word  °  in  difpute  ftriftly  im 
ports,  either  to  be  fprung  from  men,  or 
to  have  human  nature.  The  conclufion 
meant  to  be  drawn  from  it  is  not  affected 
by  the  latter  interpretation  :  for,  to  fay, 
the  gods  had  human  natures,  is  equiva-r 
lent  to  faying,  they  had  been  men.  But 
I  preferred  the  former  interpretation,  for 
two  reafons  :  one  was,  it's  having  the 
fanftipn  of  the  beft  editors  p  of  Herodo 
tus,  and  of  all  other  writers,  except  thofe 
who  had  an  end  to  ferve  by  rejecting  it  : 
the  other  reafpn  was,  that  this  interpre 
tation  fuits  well  with  the  known  opi 
nion  of  the  Greeks  concerning  the  gods  : 
for  they  did  believe  in  gods  fprung  from 
men  ;  but  they  did  not  admit,  that  the 


jf,  humanam  naturam  habens  ;  item^  or- 
tum  humanum  habens.  Scapula.  —  Dr.  Blackwell  was 
juftly  cenfured  by  the  author  of  the  Divine  Legation, 
vol.  i.  p.  97.  jn  the  note,  4th  ed.  for  explaining  this 
word  by  pn£f*nro/«>^o{,  as  if  it  imported  being  made  like 
a  man.  But  the  former  word  is  of  a  very  different  im 
port  from  the  latter. 

P  Gale  and  WefTeling  render  the  word,  ex  hominilus. 
WfH* 

fouls 


in  polifhed  Nations.  217 

fouls  of  thefe  men,  in  their  deified  ftate, 
did  ftill  partake  of  human  nature.  On 
the  contrary,  they  taught  that  this  mu 
table  >  pajfible^  mortal^  nature  was  chan 
ged  into  a  nature,  immutable.,  impajjible, 
and  immortal*.  But  I  lay  very  little 
ftrefs  upon  this  argument,  becaufe  the 
word  in  queftion  might  be  defigned  to 
exprefs  the  nature  which  the  gods  had 
originally.  The  general  meaning  of  He 
rodotus  is  too  plain  to  be  eafily  mifta- 
ken.  The  ilatues  of  the  gods  in  human 
form  were  a  proof  of  their  having  been 
men r.  Herodotus  therefore  very  natu 
rally  accounts  for  the  Perfians  differing 
fo  far  from  the  Greeks,  as  to  have  no 
facred  ftatues,  by  faying,  they  had  very 
different  notions  of  the  gods  :  for  the 
Perfians  did  not  believe,  as  the  Greeks 
did,  that  the  gods  once  had  human  na 
tures ,  or  were  fprung  from  men. 

The  Greeks  indeed  acknowledged  the 
fame  natural  gods  as  the  Perfians  did ; 

S  Diflert.  on  Mir.  p.  214.  note  f. 

*  See  Div.  Legat.  vol.  i.  p.  97,  98.  in  the  note. 

but 


2 1 8          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

but  there  was  this  difference  between 
them  :  in  Perfia  they  worfhipped  the  na 
tural  gods  thsmfelves,  directly  and  im 
mediately  ;  whereas,  in  Greece,  the 
more  immediate  objects  of  the  public 
worfhip  were  deified  human  fpirits,  to 
whom  the  adminiftration  of  the  govern 
ment  of  this  lower  world  was  thought  to 
be  committed.  And,  as  thefe  prefidents 
over  nature  did,  as  it  were,  intercept 
and  engrofs  the  public  devotion,  Hero^ 
dotus  might  juftly  fay,  in  general  terms, 
that  the  Greeks  believed  their  gods  were  of 
human  origin.  It  muft  be  obferved  far^ 
'ther,  though  there  was  occafion  to  make 
the  fame  obfervation  before  s,  that  Hero 
dotus  is  not  here  fpeaking  of  heroes  or  any 
of  the  inferior  orders  of  deities,  but  of  the 
principal  objefts  of  Grecian  worfhip,  or 
of  thofe  to  whom  the  title  of  gods  emi 
nently  belonged,  who  had  temples,  cha 
pels,  images  and  altars,  erefted  in  their 
honour*.  He  muft  therefore  include  in 

8  Above,  p.  61,  62. 

*  See  Porphyry,  de  Antro  Nymph,  p,  254. 

this 


in  polijhed  Nations.  219 

this  number  the  twelve  great  gods  of 
Greece ;  and  confequently  he  affirms, 
that  they  were  dead  men  and  women 
deified. 

Ill,  That  the  gods  of  the  greater  na 
tions  were  deified  mortals,  is  a  point  fully 
eftablifhed  by  the  Sacred  Hiftory  of  Euhe- 
merits  of  Meffina.  Notice  was  taken  of 
this  argument  elfewhere^  but  I  {hall  here 
enter  into  it  more  fully. 

Euhemerus  relates,  that,  in  one  of 
the  many  voyages  he  undertook  by  or 
der  of  CafTander,  king  of  Macedonia,  he 
came  to  an  ifland  called  Panchaia,  and 
there  found,  in  the  temple  of  the  Tri- 
philian  Jupiter,  an  authentic  regifter  of 
the  births  and  deaths  of  the  gods.  A- 
mongft  thefe  gods  he  particularly  fpeci- 
fies  Uranus ,  his  fons  by  Vejlay  viz.  Pan 
(or  rather  Titan  V  and  Saturn.,  and  his 

daughters, 

I  Dificrt.  on  Mir.  p.  194. 

II  Laftantius  (Inftitut.  Div.  1.  I.  c.  14.)  has  the  fol 
lowing  extraft  from  Euhemerus  himfelf,  according  to 
Ennius's  tranflation  of  him  :   Exin  Saturnus  uxorem  ducit 
Ofsm.     Titan,  qui  major  natu  erat,  poftulat,  ut  ipfe  reg~ 

naret. 


22O          Worfbip  of  human  Spirits 

daughters,  Rkea  and  Ceres ;  the  children 
of  Saturn  w  and  Rhea,  viz.  Jupiter,  Juno, 
and  Neptune ;  and  the  offspring  of  Ju~ 
fiter  by  Juno,  Ceres,  and  Themis,  viz. 
the  Curetes,  Proferpine,  and  Minerva. 
The  foregoing  particulars,  and  feveral 
others  concerning  Euhemerus,  are  men 
tioned  by  Diodorus  Siculus,  in  a  frag 
ment  preferved  by  Eufebius  x.  And  the 
defign  of  the  Sacred  Hiflory  was  to  fhew, 
that  the  gods  were  to  be  regarded  as  mor 
tal  men y. 

This  hiftory  received  the  fanftion  of 
the  moft  refpedlable  writers  of  antiquity. 
It  was  translated  into  Latin  and  appro- 

naret.  Hi  Fefta,  mater  torum,  et  fcrores,  Ceres  atque 
Opis,  fuadent  Saturno,  ut  de  regno  non  concedat  fratri.  — 
There  being  here  no  mention  of  Pan^  it  feems  probable 
that  the  reading  in  Diodorus  ihould  be  'Titan.  See 
WeiTeling's  Diodorus,  torn.  2.  p.  634. 

w  Saturn  fucceeded  Uranus,  and  Jupiter  fucceede4 
Saturn. 

x  Diodor.  Sic.  Fragm.  p.  633,  634.  ed.  Weff.  — 
Eufeb.  P.  Ev.  1.  2.  c.  2.  p.  59.  —  Compare  Cicero  de 
Nat.  Deor.  1.  I.  c.  42. 

y   TotvToi  xat  rot  T&TCK;  Tra.gu.TrX'q&nz,   aq  ittQ  vwr 

t£i  TUV  §w\>  hc^uv.  Diodorus,  torn.  2.  p.  634. 


in  polijhed  Nations .  221 

ved  by  Ennius z.  Cicero  alfo,  whcfe  au 
thority  is  of  the  greateft  weight,  adopted 
the  fyftem  of  the  Meffinian  concerning 
the  heathen  gods ;  as  will  be  fhewn  in 
the  next  fection.  I  fhall  only  obferve 
here,  that,  though  he  was  fully  fenfible 
of  the  abfurdity  of  worlhipping  dead 
men a,  and  of  the  evil  tendency  of  re- 
prefenting  the  gods  as  fuchb,  he  does 
not  controvert  the  truth  of  that  repre* 
fentation.  Diodorus ,  Siculus c  cites  Eu- 
hemerus  without  cenfure  ;  and,  by  the 
extra&s  he  makes  from  his  hiftory, 
plainly  difcovers  his  opinion  of  it's  fide- 

z  Euhemerus,  quern  nofter  et  interpretatus  et  fecu- 
tus  eft,  prseter  caeteros,  Ennius.  Cicer.  N.  Deor.  1. 1. 
c.  42. 

a  He  puts  the  following  words  into  the  mouth  of 
Velleius,  the  Epicurean  :  Quo  quid  abfurdius  quam  — 
homines  jam  morte  deletes  reponere  in  deos,  quorum 
omnis  cultus  eflet  futurus  in  luftu  ?  N.  Deor.  1.  i. 
c.  15. 

b  He  fays,  in  the  perfon  of  Cotta,  an  Academic 
philofopher  :  Utrum  igitur  hie  (Euhemerus)  confir- 
mafle  videtur  religionem,  an  penitus  totam  fuftulifle  ? 
Id.  ib.  c.  42. 

c  Vide  1.  5.  p.  364,  et  feq.    Fragment,  ubi  fupra. 

lity. 


222          Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

lity.  Eufebius  d  certainly  entertained 
the  fame  opinion  of  it  as  Diodorus,  and 
appeals  to  it  as  a  fufficient  authority  for 
what  he  advances  with  refpeft  to  the 
mean  origin  of  the  heathen  gods.  St. 
Auftin  e  affirms,  that  Euhemerus  efta- 
blifhed  his  notion  of  them  as  mere  mor 
tals  by  careful  refearches  into  ancient 
hiftory,  Laftantius  f,  on  different  oc- 

cafions, 

d  Pnep.  Ev.  1.  2.  c.  2.  p.  59.  et  feq. 

e  Euhemerus,  omnes  tales  decs,  non  fabulofa  garru- 
litate,  fed  hiilorica  diligentia,  homines  fuiflc  mortalef- 
que,  confcripfit.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  6.  c.  7.  See  alfo  1.  7. 
c.  26. 

f  Antiquus  autor,  Euhemerus,  qui  fuit  ex  civitate 
Meffene,  res  geflas  Jovis,  et  caeterorum  qui  dii  putan- 
tur,  collegit,  hiiloriamque  contexuit  ex  titulis  et  in- 
fcriptionibus  facris  quas  in  antiquiffimis  templis  habe- 
bantur,  maximeque  in  fano  Jovis  Triphylii.  La£lant. 
Div.  Inftitut.  1.  I.  c.  n.  p.  49,  50.  torn.  I.  ed.  Du- 
frefnoy.  —  Aperiamus  quae  in  verts  literis  continentur. 
Hasc  Ennii  verba  funt,  £c.  Hsec  hiftoria  quam  <vera 
fit,  docet  Sibylla  Erythrsea,  eadem  fere  dicens.  Id.  ib^ 
c.  14.  —  Ad  hiftoriam  veniamus,  quas  fimul  et  rerum 
fide,  et  temporum  nitituf  vetuftate.  Euhemerus  fuit 
Meflenius,  antiquiffimus  fcriptor,  qui  de  facris  infcrip- 
tionibus  veterum  templorum  et  originem  Jovis,  et  res 
geftas,  omnemque  progeniem,  collegit  j  item  cstero- 

rura 


in  poll  foe  d  Nations . 

cafions,  afferts  the  truth  of  his  memoirs, 
and  fays  they  were  extracted  from  the 
monuments  and  facred  infcriptions  of 
the  oldeft  temples,  and  efpecially  from 
thofe  in  the  temple  of  the  Triphylian 
Jupiter.  And  he  affirms,  that  the  molt 
ancient  writers  of  Greece,  thofe  whom 
they  called  theologers,  and  the  Romans, 
who  copied  from  the  Greeks,  entertained 
the  fame  opinion  of  the  gods  as  Euhe- 
merus g.  According  to  Minucius  Fe 
lix11,  cc  he  pointed  out  the  places  where 
"  the  gods  were  born,  their  countries, 
*c  and  their  fepulchres,  in  the  different 
cc  provinces  of  the  earth  :"  which  furely 
muft  afford  every  one  an  opportunity 

rum  deorum  parentes,  patrias,  a6tus,  imperia,  obitus, 
fepulcra  etiam,  perfecntus  eft.  Id.  Epitome  Div.  IniH- 
tut.  c.  13.  torn.  2. 

s  Omnes,  qui  coluntur  ut  dii,  homines  fuerunt.—. 
Quod  cum  vetuftiffimi  Graecise  fcriptores,  quos  illi  &0~ 
^oyy?  nuncupant,  turn  etiam  Romani,  Graecos  fecuti  et 
imitati,  docent ;  quorum  prscipue  Euhemerus,  ac  nof- 
ter  Ennius.  Id.  de  Ira  Deir  c.  xi.  p.  152. 

h  Euhemerus  —  eorum  uatales,  patrias,  fepulchra^ 
dinumerat,  et  per  provincias  monilrat.  Min.  Fel.  Oc- 
tavius,  c,  /.xi. 

of 


224         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

of  dete£ting  his  impofture,  had  he  been 
chargeable  with  any.  And  Arnobius ' 
tells  the  Heathens,  he  could  prove,  that 
all  thofe  whom  they  called  gods  had 
been  men,  from  the  writings  either  of 
Euhemerus,  or  Nicagoras,  or  Pellaeus, 
or  Theodoras,  or  Hippo  and  Diagoras, 
or  by  a  thoufand  other  authors,  who 
had  made  the  moft  critical  and  diligent 
inquiry  into  this  fubjecl,  and,  with  an 
ingenuous  freedom  of  mind,  had  brought 
to  light  things  that  were  concealed  from 
public  view. 

But  Euhemerus,  it  is  faid,  was  brand 
ed  as  an  atheift  ;  and  this  circumilance 
has  been  urged  to  difcredit  the  truth  of 
his  doftrine  concerning  the  humanity  of 
the  gods.  In  anfwer  to  this  objection, 
it  may  be  obferved, 

1  PofTumus  quidem  hoc  in  loco  omnes  iftos,  notns 
quos  inducitis  atque  appellatis  dcos,  homines  fuifTe 
monftrare,  vel  Agragantino  Euhemero  replicato,  — — 
vel  Nicagoro  Cyprio,  vel  Pellaco  Leonte,  vel  Cyrenenf! 
Theodoro,  vel  Hippone  ac  Diagora  Meliis,  vel  auftori-- 
bus  aliis  mille,  qui  fcrupulofae  diligentiae  cura  in  lucem 
res  abditas  libertate  ingenua  protulerunt.  p»^7» 

i.  Na 


in  polljhed  Nations.  225 

i .  No  man  was  deemed  an  atheift,  by 
the  Heathens,  if  he  worfhipped  any  gods 
who  interefted  themfelves  in  the  affairs 
of  mankind,  though  they  were  only 
fuch  as  had  been  men*  Such  gods  a- 
lone  as  thefe  were  worfhipped  by  the 
Getes  and  Augilites,  who  neverthelefs 
were  not  cenfured  as  atheifts k.  The 
Panchaians  difcovered  an  extraordinary 
devotion  to  thofe  divinities,  whofe  births 
and  deaths  were  regiftered  in  their  mofl 
magnificent  temple1.  So  far  was  the 
deification  of  men  from  implying  athe- 
ifm,  that  it  rather  prefuppofed  the  exif- 
tence  of  the  natural  gods,  with  whom 
the  deified  men  were  affociated,  and 
from  whom  they  derived  their  power 
and  authority  m.  The  priefts,  who  cer- 

k  Above,  p.  32,  97. 

1  Euhemerus  represents  them  as  svtrt&i*  ^ap^omt;, 
«ai  T»?  $E"a$  rifAUVTou;  fAeyaAoTr^eTrsraTafs  $vffiai<;t  K.  r.  A. 
As  to  the  celeftial  gods,  he  fays,  Uranus  was  the  firfl 
who  honoured  them  with  'facrifices ;  from  which  cir- 
cumftance  he  derived  his  name.  Diod.  Sic.  Fragm. 
P-  633,  634. 

01  Diflert.  on  Mir.  p.  175.  note  '. 

Q^  tainly 


226         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

tainly  did  not  intend  to  promote  athe- 
ifm,  did  themfelves  reveal  the  human 
origin  of  the  great  gods  to  thofe  initia 
ted  into  the  myfteries.  And  thofe  phi- 
lofophers,  who  were  concerned  to  fup- 
port  the  public  religion,  maintained  that 
(even  according  to  the  rules  of  right 
reafon,  as  will  be  (hewn  hereafter)  vir 
tuous  men  were  advanced  firft  to  the 
rank  of  heroes,  next  to  that  of  demons, 
and  afterwards  to  that  of  gods,  having 
attained  to  a  ftate  of  the  higheft  perfec 
tion  and  blefiednefs n.  Euhemerus  there 
fore  was  not  ranked  amongft  the  athe- 
ifts  merely  for  aflerting,  that  thofe  wor- 
fhipped  by  the  people  as  gods  had  once 
been  men. 

2.  What  the  Heathens  lay  to  the 
charge  of  Euhemerus  is,  his  believing, 
that  there  were  no  gods,  or  none  'who  take 

n  OU&BV  yv  $ci   ra.  o-uparot,  ruv  ctyot&uv  GviKzva.inp'jtuv  vrcigot, 
£t?  8gai/ov,   aXAa  fccq  a^ara?  KOU 
t,    xara    <pv<riv   xai    ^x.'/jv   §notvt    tx. 

t%   $  V(>MUV,     eu;   oa,^ovcn^t   ex.   oe   oo 
ya.^£^£<r^atj   TO  y.&XXirov  v.cu 

.    Plutarchi  Romulus,  p.  3^.  A. 

care 


in  polifhed  Nations.  227 

care  of  mankind0.  He  was  accufed  of  real 
atheifm  ;  but  Theophilus  Antiochenus  p 
feems  to  intimate  that  he  did  notpublickly 
avow  this  principle  at  firft.  And  it  might 
be  charged  upon  him  only  as  the  appre 
hended  confequence  of  his  reje6ling  the 
received  notion  of  the  popular  gods  ; 
juft  as  Socrates,  for  a  fimilar  reafon, 

0  Who,  fays  ^Elian,  can  forbear  extolling  the  wifdom 
of  the  Barbarians  ?  for  none  of  them  eiier  fell  into  atheifm  , 
or  doubted  whether  there  are  any  gods,  or  any  <v:ho  take 
care  of  mankind.  They  never  entertained  the  like  fentiment 
as  Euhemerus  —  —  but  unwerfally  ajftrted,  that  there  are 
gods,  and  that  they  take  care  of  us.  T»j  ax.  ctv  sTryvea-s  rr,v 

TUV  j3oi<XUy  croay   ;      Eȣ     K.'/!^?  OiVTUV  E 


TTE^I  Stay,  ago,  yt  new, 

>j  «•      Ov^sn;  yav  stivotav  thafis  ToictvTw,  onz» 
u  E^«/xe§o?  -  Asyacrt  $s  ruy  ^a^oafuv  <rrgo£igriiJ>,ev(H,   xcci  sivut 

Ssa?,  xat  Tr^oi/oEtv  vpuv*      Var.  Hift.  1.  2.    0.31.   —   See 
alfo  Plutarch,  de  Placit.  Philofoph.  1.  i.  c.  7.  p.  880. 

P  "  After  having  had  the  courage  to  fpeak  many 
"  things  concerning  the  gods,"  (that  is,  I  apprehend, 
to  reprefent  them  as  having  been  men,)  "  he  at  laft  went 
t(  fo  far  as  to  affirm,  that  there  were  no  gods  at  all,  nor 
tf  any  fuperin  tending  providence,  but  that  the  world 
"  was  governed  by  chance."  Do^a  y«g  **#  $wv  roA- 
p'/iffots  9^£y|aa^at,  tcr^arov  xui  TO  t|oAtf  ^  sweii  ^E»?,  aXAa 
TOC,  <ffct,vrce,  uvroparHTpv  hoiitHffSou  @ovteroii*  Theoph.  Ant. 

ad  Autolycum,  1.  3.  p.  293,  294.  ed.  Wolfii, 

was 


228          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

was  deemed  an  atheift,  though  he  was 
far  from  deferving  fuch  a  reproach, 
Whatever  Euhemerus's  real  charac 
ter  was,  it  is  certain  that  one  reafon  of 
his  being  thought  ail  atheift  was  his 
fpeaking  of  the  gods  as  men  who  perifh- 
ed  at  death,  and  confequently  were  not 
really  deified.  We  are  expreffly  told  by 
Sextus  Empiricus  q,  that  he  reprefented 
their  pretended  deification  as  the  mere 
effeft  of  the  pride  and  policy  of  princes 
and  great  men,  in  order  to  procure  a 
higher  veneration  for  their  perfons,  and 
a  more  ready  fubmiffion  to  their  autho 
rity.  Now,  if  all  thofe  who  were  wor- 
fhipped  as  gods  had  been  men,  as  Eu- 
hemerus  afTerts,  and  thefe  men  were 
falfely  fuppofed  to  become  gods,  the 
Heathens  would  regard  him  as  one  who 


Efy/jM,e^o?    oiy     o    &triy.'to§si$   a&oj,   ^>>?crii<,   or*  yv 
fSiof,    01  TreitvoABvoi  fuv  otKhuv   io"vi  TE  xat 


TWO,   KOU  Seictv  Svi/apiv,   SV$EV    nan    TO 
i.    Sextus  Empiricus,  adv.  Phyficos,  1.  9. 
c,  2.  §.17.  p.  552.  ed.  Fabricii.    Vid,  §.51. 

believed 


in  polijhed  Nations  .  229 

believed  there  were  no  gods  at  all.  Plu 
tarch,  in  a  pafTage  that  will  be  quickly 
cited,  grounds  the  charge  of  atheifm 
againft  him,  not  upon  his  aflerting  that 
the  gods  had  been  men,  but  upon  his 
maintaining  that  they  were  nothing  more 
than  men  long  fince  dead.  Nay,  Plutarch, 
as  we  fhall  fee  *,  diftinguifhes  the  former 
of  thefe  propofitions  from  atheifm.  The 
account  here  given  of  the  Meffinian  is  con 
firmed  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  r,  who 
fays,  cc  that  Euhemerus,  Nicanor,  Dia- 
<c  goras,  Hippo,  Theodorus,  and  others, 
"  were  called  atheifts,  becaufe  they  had 
<c  the  fagacity  to  difcern  the  error  of  o- 
c<  ther  men  concerning  the  gods  ;"  that 
is,  they  clearly  faw  they  were  not  real 
divinities. 

Now,  if  Euhemerus  would  not  have 
been  accufed  of  atheifm  by  the  Hea- 

*  Below,  p.  234. 


TTtf     TUV  AotTTWI/  OiV^^UTTUV    TT,V  Ot,[J&\  TtfJ  ^e 

£7njtExA7jxa<7*v.    Clem.  Alexandr.  Cohort,  ad 
Gentes,  torn.  I.  p.  20,  21.  ed.  Potteri. 

thens, 


230         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

thens,  had  he  merely  aflerted,  that  the 
received  gods  had  been  mortal  men, 
provided  he  had  allowed  their  advance 
ment,  after  death,  to  a  deified  ftate : 
the  objeftion  we  have  been  examining 
does  not  reach  the  point.  And,  if  one 
ground,  at  leaft,  of  the  charge  of  athe- 
ifm  againft  him  was  his  denying  the 
real  deification  of  men,  this  is  a  demon- 
ftration  that  the  Heathens  acknow 
ledged  this  principle  ;  and  confequently 
the  objection  under  confideratjon  efta- 
blifhes  the  point  it  was  meant  to  over 
turn. 

The  only  plaufible  objeftion  againft 
the  hiftory  of  Euhemerus  is  that  urged 
by  Plutarch ;  viz.  that  no  one  befides 
this  hiftorian  had  ever  feen  the  ifland 
of  Panchaia 8,  Plutarch,  as  a  prieft 
of  the  gods,  could  not  but  be  dif- 
pleafed  with  the  Meffinian  for  minute 
ly  inquiring  into  their  charafter  and  ac^ 
tions,  and  for  publifhing  to  the  whole 

s  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  360,  A.  B. 

worid 


in  policed  Nations.  231 

world  their  earthly  origin  '.  He  was  ftill 
more  highly  offended  at  his  reprefenting 
them  as  men  who  were  deftroyed  by 
death.  He  himfelf  was  an  advocate  for 
the  real  deification  of  virtuous  fouls  \ 
for  the  phyfical  explication  of  the  ab- 
furd  ftories  concerning  the  gods  w,  and 
for  the  exiftence  of  an  order  of  celeftial 
demons x ;  and,  on  thefe  principles,  he 
undertook  the  defence  of  the  pagan  re 
ligion,  at  a  time  when  it  was  warmly 
attacked,  not  only  by  the  fceptical  phi- 
lofophers,  but  by  the  Chriftians  in  every 

*  It  was  a  facred  maxim,  with  the  Heathens,  "  that 
"  it  was  more  their  duty  to  believe  the  deeds  of  the 
•"  gods,  than  to  know  them;"  which  they  obferved  e- 
ven  with  regard  to  thofe  gods  who  had  been  men.  See 
above,  p.  159.  note  a.  Hercules  is  the  god  there  fpo- 
ken  of.  To  reveal  the  fecret  of  the  myfteries  was  an 
aft  of  the  higheft  impiety.  Hence  Plutarch  complains, 
that  afferting  the  humanity  of  the  gods  was  moving 
things  which  ought  not  to  be  moved.  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  359«  F« 
In  order  to  fupport  their  falfe  religion,  the  pagan 
priefts  found  it  necefTary  to  check  curioiity,  and  pre 
vent  free  inquiry,  on  the  fubjecl, 

u  Above,  p.  226.  note  n.  w  If.  et  Ofir.  paffim. 

x  Ib.  p.  360, 

Part 


232         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

part  of  the  world,    on  account  of  it's 
confifting  in  the  worfhip  of  dead  men. 
That  it  did  confift  very  much  in  fuch 
worfhip,  they   proved   by   many    argu 
ments,  and  particularly  by  the  teftimony 
of  Euhemerus.     Can   we  wonder  then 
that  Plutarch   laboured  to  difparage  it, 
when  we  confider  that  it  overturned  his 
favourite  fpeculations,  and  left  his  reli 
gion  without  the  fhadow  of  a  fupport  ? 
But  let  us  examine  the  weight  of  his  ob- 
je£Hon.      Even   if  there   was   no   fuch 
ifland  as  Panchaia,  the  doftrine  of  Eur- 
hemerus  might  be  true,  becaufe  it  was 
fupported  by  other  records  befides  thofe 
of  the  temple  of  the  Triphylian  Jupiter, 
which  might  be  appealed  to  only  to  a- 
void  the  odium  and  danger  of  divulging 
the  fecret  of  the  mylteries.      There  is 
however  no  fufficient  reafon  to  affirm, 
that  the  ifland  of  Panchaia  had  no  exif- 
tence.     It  is  mentioned  by  Pomponius 
Mela  y,    defcribed   by   Diodorus    SictH 

y  L.  3,  c.  8.  !.  69.    with  the  notes  of  F.  Voifius, 


in  foHJked  Nations.  233 

lus  *,  and  it's  exiftence,  according  to  Vof- 
fius,  eftablifhecl  beyond  contradi6lion  by 
the  teftimony  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes*.  The 
hiftory  of  Euhemerus's  voyage  to  it  met 
with  credit  from  many  refpeclable  wri 
ters,  who  lived  much  nearer  to  the  time 
of  it's  publication  than  Plutarch.  And 
if,  in  the  remote  age  of  this  philofo- 
pher,  or  even  in  that  of  Polybius  b,  it 
was  not  known  that  any  one  had  ever 
feen  Panchaia  befides  our  voyager,  let  it 
be  remembered,  that  he  was  more  likely 
than  any  other  to  difcover  this  ifland,  as 
he  had  failed  much  farther  to  the  fouth 
of  the  Arabian  gulph  than  mere  traders 
had  ever  done,  having  been  fent  out  by 

2  L.  5.  p.  364.  et  feq.    Fragm.  p.  633. 

a  Ut  omnem  prorfus  tollam  dubitationem,  fubjungam 
teftimonium  omni  exceptlone  majus,  Ptolemaei.nempe 
Euergetae,  excerptum  ex  monumento  Adulitico,  in 
quo  recenfentur  gentes  Ethiopicae,  quas  ipfe  pnefens 
fubjugavit.  —  This  monurnent  mentions  the  Panchaites. 
—  Voffius,  ubi  fupra; 

b  See  Strabo,  1.2.  p.  163.  and  1.  7.  p.  459.  from 
whence  it  appears  that  Polybius  did  not  credit  the  ac- 
-£ ount  given  of  Panchaia. 

the 


234         Worjbip  of  human  Spirits 

the  king  of  Macedonia,  on  purpofe,  as 
it  fhould  feem,  to  make  new  difcoveries. 

What  has  Plutarch  done  to  refute  the 
doftrine  of  Euhemerus  ?  To  my  ap- 
prehenfion,  what  he  has  admitted  ferves 
fully  to  eftablifli  it.  He  allows  that 
the  things  related  of  the  gods  accord 
with  the  opinion  of  their  having  been 
men  %  and  that  thofe  who  hold  this  opi 
nion  have  thefupport  of  hi/lory d ;  though  at 
the  fame  time  he  acknowledges  it's  ten 
dency  to  produce  atheifm e ;  or  that  a  be 
lief  that  the  objefts  of  their  worfhip  had 
been  men  led  to  a  denial  of  their  being  re 
ally  gods  e.  What  could  Euhemerus  him- 
felf  defire  more  than  fuch  a  conceffion 
from  a  learned  and  able  adverfary  ? 

After  the  foregoing  obfervations,  Plu 
tarch  immediately  introduces  the  men- 

c  See  above,  p.  166. 

«>  E^aa-tv  aTro  TUV  irog»f*6VW»  /3ov$aias,    Plutarch,  p.  359.  E. 

*  It  opened  /o-sya^a?  TV  avew  tos>  x>.taiao«?,  a  great 
window  or  door  to  atheiftic  people.  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  360. 
-—  This  proves  what  was  before  afferted,  that  Plutarch 
diflinguifhes  between  tjie  humanity  of  the  gods,  and  the 
ejfett  it  might  produce  on  perfons  of  reflexion. 

tioa 


in  polijhed  Nations.  235 

tion  of  our  author,  and  complains, 
"  that  he  had  fpread  all  manner  of  athe- 
c<  ifm  throughout  the  world,  and  ftruck 
cc  at  the  exiftence  of  all  the  received  gods 
cc  without  diftinftion,  whom  he  defcri- 
cc  bed  merely  as  ancient  generals,  admi- 
"  rals,  and  kings  V  This  paflage  ferves 
to  ftiew,  that  Euhemerus  gained  many 
converts  to  his  opinion.  We  are  afked8, 
Did  the  Heathens  receive  his  dottrine  ?  If 
nof,  what  have  we  to  do  in  this  cafe  with  the 
groundlefs  fuppojitions  of  an  individual  ? 
Could  Plutarch  juftly  charge  Euhemerus 
with  fpreading  atheifm  throughout  the  world  \ 
if  his  doftrine  had  not  been  received 
throughout  the  world  ?  The  reception 
of  his  doctrine  was  the  caufe  ;  atheifm 
was  the  effeSt  -,  and  both  muft  have  been 
of  equal  extent.  So  that  the  doftrine  of 
Euhemerus  concerning  the  origin  of  the 


J    Travraj  o^auq     iaygGiaV)   EH;  Gvopoc, 
apci    v&va^xuv,   X.UL  @oc.a-&tU!>t   u$  $v  TTaAai  ytyovo- 
v.    If.  et  Ofir.  p.  360,  A, 

%  fell,  p,  8j, 

gods, 


236         Wbrfhlp  of  human  Spirits 

gods,  which  a  late  writer  treats  as  the 
groundkfs  fuppojition  of  an  INDIVIDUAL, 
was  allowed  to  be  generally  received,  as 
well  as  founded  in  uncontroverted  fafts, 
even  by  that  great  man  who  was  moft 
offended  at  it's  being  breached.  And  it 
has  been  proved,  that  this  do6trine  was 
maintained  and  defended  by  Greek  and 
Roman,  by  Heathen  and  Chriftian,  wri 
ters,  and  fupported  by  the  authority  of 
records  in  the  moft  ancient  temples. 

Now,  if  this  doctrine  of  Euhemerus 
be  true,  then  even  the  great  gods  of 
Greece  were  men  and  women,  who 
were,  without  any  reafon,  fuppofed  to 
become  gods  after  death. 

This  point  will  be  farther  confirmed 
by  other  teftimonies  in  the  next  feftion, 
when  the  Roman  gods  come  under  con- 
fideration.  And,  were  we  to  defcend  to 
a  particular  enumeration  of  the  feveral 
Grecian  deities  of  which  we  are  here 
fpeaking,  we  fhould  find  diftinct  evi 
dence  of  the  human  origin  of  each.  But, 
as  this  would  lead  to  a  repetition  of  many 

things 


in  polljhed  Nations  .  237 

things  already  noticed,  and  to  an  anti 
cipation  of  others  which  will  occur  in 
the  fequel,  I  fhall  only  conlider  the  cafe 
of  the  Grecian  Jupiter  •,  the  father  of  gods 
and  men  h. 

The  term  Jupiter^  which,  according 
to  Cicero,  denotes  only  a  helping  father  \ 
was  commonly  ufed  to  exprefs  the  fu- 
preme  pagan  deity.  The  philofophers 
defcribed,  by  this  term,  their  fupreme 
natural  divinity  ;  which,  according  to 
fome,  was  the  world  or  foul  of  the 
world  ;  and,  according  to  others,  either 
the  aether  or  the  fun  k.  But  the  pre- 

fent 


h  Ua-rn^  av^uv  TE  SEWVTE.     Homer. 

Pater   divumque   hominumque.     Latin  poets.    Cicero, 
Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  25. 

1  Juvans  pater.    Id.  ib. 

fc  The  proofs  of  this  point  need  not  be  produced 
here.  I  fhall  only  obferve,  that,  though  Mr.  Fell  af 
firms,  p.  22.  "  that  it  is  uni<verfally  known,  that  no 
"  fart  of  nature  was  ever  coniidered  by  the  Heathens 
<{  as  their  fupreme  deity  ;  and  that  the  fun,  in  parti- 
"  cular,  was  not  fo  confidered,"  p.  15.  yet,  in  exprefs 
contradidlion  to  himfelf,  the  fame  writer  maintains, 
p.  124,  "  that  their  (the  Heathens)  chief  deities  were 

"  die 


238         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

fent ]  queftion  concerns  only  that  Jupi 
ter  who  was  the  chief  objeft  of  the  efta- 
blifhed  worfhip  in  the  ancient  nations, 
and  particularly  in  Greece. 

"  the  aether,  fun,  moon,  planets,  and  hods  of  hea- 
"  ven;"  nay,  he  pleads  that  fome  nations  adored 
no  gods  but  the  fun  or  the  heavens,  p.  8,  9.  He  fays, 
p.  119.  (fee  alfo  p.  5.)  "  that  the  Creator  of  all  things 
*'  was  acknowledged  amongft  them  (the  Heathens)  al- 
ff  moft  every  where."  Could  he  be  acknowledged  by 
thofe  whofe  chief  deities  were  the  fun  and  moon?  More 
conformable  to  the  real  faft  is  the  declaration  of  fcrip- 
ture.  They  facrificed  not  to  God,  Deut.  xxxii.  17.  When 
they  knew  (or  had  plain  notices  of)  God,  they  glorified 
him  not  as  God,  but  fer<ved  the  creature  (naga)  rather 
than  the  Creator  ;  that  is,  pajfing  by  the  Creator,  (fee 
Beza  in  loc.  and  the  Syriac  and  ^Ethiopic  verfions, 
and  the  vulgar  Latin,)  or  in  oppofetion  to  him,  (fo  oraga 
TOV  vopov,  Acts  xviii.  3.  is  contrary  to  law,)  Rom.  i.  21. 
.  But  all  that  occurs  in  this  writer,  about  the  un 

created  God,  p.  6.  the  created  gods,  p.  15,  16,  17.  the 
Creator  of  the  univerfe,  and  the  creation,  p.  I,  5.  fo 
far  as  this  language  refpecls  the  Heathens,  ferves  only 
to  mew  he  was  not  fenfible,  that  the  Heathens,  who 
lived  before  the  coming  of  Chrift,  denied  a  proper  ere* 
ation,  and  afferted  the  generation  of  the  gods  and  of  the 
world.  Now,  "  no  generation ,"  they  faid,  t{  is  made 
"  from  what  does  not  exift:"  OVK  e«  ra  pj  o*ro$  -n  ym<rtf* 
Plutarch,  de  Animae  Procreat,  p.  1014.  ^4 

1  See  above,  p.  6. 

The 


in  poll  ft)  ed  Nations . 

The  Arcadians  m  difputed  with  the 
Cretans  the  honour  of  giving  birth  to 
Jupiter  ;  but  it  is  fufficient  to  our  pur- 
pofe  to  obferve,  that  the  conteft  itfelf 
proved  his  being  regarded  by  both  as  a 
man.  If  he  was  not  born  in  Crete,  he 
was  certainly  educated  there  ;  and  was 
called  Dia&an  from  a  mountain  in  that 
ifland  called  Di&e,  the  place  of  his  edu 
cation  n.  He  died,  at  the  age  of  an  hun 
dred  and  twenty  °,  in  the  ifland  of 
Crete p.  Callimachus,  indeed,  will  not 

m  Callimach.  Hymn,  in  Jov.  v.  6-,  7.  Cicero,  Nat, 
Deor.  1.  3.  c.  21.  fays,  the  theologers  reckoned  three 
Jupiters  ;  two  born  in  Arcadia  ;  the  third  in  Crete, 
who  was  the  fon  of  Saturn.  See  Laclantius,  1.  i.  c.  n. 
and  Arnobius,  1.  4.  p.  135.  who  affirm  the  fame  con 
cerning  the  Cretan  Jupiter. 

11  Virgil.  Georg.  IV.  152.    Servius  on  JEn.  III.  171. 

0  Suidas  (voc.  ILjxo?)  fays,  n^xo?,  o  «a»  Zeus,  re- 
hevrxj  £W«?  x'  KOU  SZCITOV  ET»J.  Compare  Chron.  Alexand. 
p.  87,  89.  Ennius  (ap.  Laftant.  1.  i.  c.  u.  p.  52.) 
fays  of  Jupiter,  JEtzte  peiTum  acla,  in  Creta  vitam 
commutavit,  et  ad  deos  abiit. 

*  See  Ladantius,  in  the  preceding  note. 

allow 


240         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

allow  that  he  died q ;  yet,  by  reprefent- 
ing  him  as  the  offspring  of  Rhea,  by 
pointing  out  the  place  of  his  nativity  r, 
and  making  his  ftrength  and  exploits 
the  ground  of  his  becoming  king  of  the 
gods s,  he  plainly  holds  him  forth  under 
a  human  character.  His  tomb  was  o- 
penly  fhewn  in  Crete  l ;  and  Diodorus 

Siculus 

9  Callimach.  Hymn,  in  Jov.  v.  9.  See  fome  juft 
flriftures  on  Callimachus,  on  account  of  his  denying 
the  death  of  Jupiter,  in  Athenagoras,  Legat.  pro 
Chriflian.  p.  121,  izz.  ed.  Oxon. 

r  Ev  £E  at  ria^acrr/j  Per/j  T£x£.  In  Parrhafia  verote  Rhea 
peperit.  v.  10.  See  v.  15,  16,  17. 

*  Of  fft  viuv  g(j<7>3va  "TraAot  $Bcrotv,   £^ya  $£  X>£l^cav» 

2)l9  T£  /3t>J,    TO  T£  ^flt^TOf,    X.  T.  X.       V.  66,   67. 

Non  te  regem  deorum  fecerunt  fortes,  fed  opera  manu- 
um,  tuaque  vis  et  robur.  —  Thefe  were  the  ufual 
grounds  of  deifying  men. 

1  Lucian.  de  facrificiis,  torn.  I.   p.  367.  ed.  Amftel. 
1687.     Cicero,  fpeaking  of  the  Jupiter  born  in  Crete, 
fays,  Cujus  in  ilia  infula  fepulchrum  oflenditur.    Nat. 
Deor.  1.  3.  c,  21.     Pythagoras   wrote  upon  the   tomb 
of  the  Cretan  Jupiter  the  following  epigram  : 
Sl$e  Sctvuv  x.£irou  Z«y,   ov  AKX.  xixXr,<rxtf<rtv. 
Zan,  ^whom  men  call  Jupiter,  lies  here  deceafed.     Por- 
phyr.  Vit.  Pythagor.  p.  187.  ed.  Cantab.   1655.     Ac 
cording  to  Euhemerus,  the  infcription  upon  Jupiter's 

tomb 


in  polifhed  Nations.  241 

Siculus  *  relates,  that  the  remains  of  it 
were  to  be  feen  in  his  time.  He  was 
highly  celebrated  for  his  wifdom  and 
valour,  and  reigned  over  a  large  part  of 
the  earth.  Having  retrained  violence, 
eftablifhed  laws,  promoted  the  welfare 
of  fociety,  and  rendered  himfelf  an  emi 
nent  benefaftor  to  his  fubjecls  and  to 
mankind,  he  was  judged  worthy  of 
an  eternal  kingdom,  and  a  feat  in 
Olympus,  by  the  whole  human  race u. 
R  The 

tomb  was,  Z«v  Kgovu,  Jupiter  Saturni.  La&ant.  Epi 
tome,  torn.  2.  c.  13.  p.  10.  ed.  Dufrefnoy.  Suidas 
fays,  that,  when  he  was  dying,  he  ordered  his  body  to 
be  buried  in  the  iiland  of  Crete  ;  and  that  the  infcrip- 
tion  upon  his  tomb  was,  EtSa^e  xEtrat  Bavuv  nr.y.oq  o  Zrj,% 
He  adds,  that  very  many  writers  made  mention  of  his 
tomb.  Suidas,  voc.  rivjxo?.  —  Apud  infulam  Cretam 
fepulturas  traditus,  fays  Arnobius,  p.  135. 

.*  L.  3.  p.  230.  ed.  WelT. 

u  Euhemerus  Jovem  tradit,  cum  quinquies  orbem 
circumiviffet,  et  amicis  fuis  atque  cognatis  diftribuiiTet 
imperia,  legefque  hominibus,  niultaque  alia  bona  fecif- 
fet,  imrnortali  gloria  memoriaque  affedum  fempiterna, 
in  Creta  vitam  commutafTe,  atque  ad  deos  abiiiFe.  Lac- 
tant.  Epitome,  c.  13.  torn.  2.  p.  10. — Diodorus  Sicu 
lus,  1.5.  p.  387,  388.  after  enumerating  the  bleffings 

of 


242         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

The  Cretans,  in  particular,  who  gloried 
in  having  his  tomb  amongft  them,  ho 
noured  him  with  more  excellent  rites 
and  Sacrifices  than  their  other  deities, 
regarded  him  as  the  ruler  of  all  things 
in  heaven  ;  of  fhowers,  thunder  and 
lightening,  and  of  the  temperature  of 
the  air,  on  which  the  fruits  of  the  earth 
depend ;  and  called  him  Zen,  becaufe  to 
him  they  owe  their  lives  or  the  means 
of  fubfiftence  w.  The  reprefentation 

made 

of  his  reign,  fays:  Aia  os  TO  p.eye$o<;  TUV  evegyso-wv,  V.CK,* 
rvv  vTrs^op^v  T»7£  &wsc,(Jt,euqt  <rvp,(ptivu<;  oairct}  vct^ct,  TT&VTUV  evy- 
xexu(>v)<r$su  TW  TS  /3«cr»AEt«v  eu;  TW  «£»  %^ovov>  KOH  TVJV  ownew 
Tf,y  ev  OXf/ATrw. 

w  KctTot$tix§vivoii  be  xo-i  ^f(T»a?  ctvtu  ffvvrttew  W!rt(>  rx<;  ce,\- 
^y?  w7ia,vTcis>  x.  r.  A.  Sacra  etiam  prae  Cceteris  exquifita 
ipfi  peragi  inflitutum  ;  et,  poll  migrationem  e  terris  in 
coelum,  jufta  mentibus  hominum,  in  quos  beneficia 
ccntulerat,  perfuafio  infixa  eft,  quod  omnium  qu<e  in 
qoe.lo  fiunt,  iinbrium,  inquam,  et  tonitruum,  fulmi- 
numque,  et  id  genus  aliorum,  arbiter  fit  et  moderator. 
Ideoque  Zena  ipfum  vocant,  propterea  quod  vivendi, 
quod  Zen  Graecis  eft,  au&or  efle,  dum  commoda  aeris 
temperie  fruftus  ad  maturitatem  perducit,  exiftimatur.. 
Diod.  Sic.  p.  388.  —  Compare  the  account  which  Dio- 
dorus  gives  of  the  Jupiter  of  the  Atlantians.  He  was 

called 


in  polijhed  Nations.  243 

made  of  the  Grecian  Jupiter  by  Homer, 
notwithftanding  his  magnificent  defcrip- 
tions  of  him,  is  perfeftly  conformable 
to  the  account  here  given  of  his  low  ori 
gin.  If,  according  to  Homer,  Jupiter 
reigned  over  the  gods,  and  fhook  all 
heaven  with  his  nod,  yet,  according  to 
the  fame  poet,  he  wanted  the  affiftance 
of  Briareus  to  fave  him  from  the  violence 
of  Neptune,  Juno,  and  Minerva  x.  The 
paffions  and  vices  afcribed  to  him  fhew 
that  he  partook  of  the  nature  of  man. 
In  Plato's  Euthyphro,  where  he  is  ftiled, 

Called  Zen,    hoc.  TO   &>xm   ra    x.oe.7\uq   £r,v  union  ymcr&at  roi$ 
$  ev    tu    noyu    TIJ   TUV  ev   ira.Qovruv 


vruv  Seov  xcti  xvgiov  st<;  rov 
cctuva,  ra  cry/xwavro?  nocr^a.  L.  3.  p.  230.  ed.  V/eiT.  —  As 
to  Jupiter's  ruling  in  the  air,  it  is  illuflrated  by  the 
account  tfT'hor,  given  above,  p.  36.  note  c. 

*  See  Diflert.  on  Mir.  p.  177.  Plutarch  quotes  the 
following  lines  from  Homer,  which  well  agree  with 
what  occurs  in  this  reference.  Speaking  of  Jupiter  and 
Neptune,  the  poet  fays  : 

Both  of  one  line,   both  of  cne  country,  boaj}*' 
Bttt  royal  Jove's  the  eldeft,  and  knows  moji. 
Plutarch.  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  351. 

R    2  the 


244         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

the  left  and  moft  jujl Y  of  the  gods,  he  is  at 
the  fame  time  reprefented  as  holding  his 
father  in  chains.  In  the  very  rites  of 
his  worfhip,  there  was  a  manifeft  refe 
rence  to  the  hiftory  of  his  infant  condi 
tion  z.  But  it  is  needlefs  to  multiply 
proofs  in  fo  plain  a  cafe.  I  muft  not 
however  omit  to  obferve,  that  the  men 
tion  made  by  the  Heathens,  of  his  pa 
rents  and  more  remote  anceftors,  of  his 
brethren,  dependents,  and  kindred*,  is 
a  farther  proof  of  his  belonging  to  the 
human  race.  And,  if  this  was  the  cafe 
as  to  Jupiter,  it  muft  be  the  fame  as  to 
the  other  gods  and  goddeffes  who  were 

y  Afire?  KM  &KOUOTUTOI;.  Platon.  Euthyphro,  p.  5. 
torn.  i.  ed.  Serrani. 

z  Ipfius  Cretici  Jovis  facra,  quid  aliud,  quam  quo- 
modo  fit,  aut  fubtraftus  patri,  aut  nutritus,  oftendunt? 
Capella  eft  Amalthese  nymphae,  quse  uberibus  fuis  aluit 
infantem.  La&ant.  1.  I.  c.  21.  p.  100. 

a  Arnobius  thus  addreffes  the  Heathens :  At  vero 
Jupiter,  ut  vos  fertis,  et  patrem  habet  et  matrem,  a- 
vos,  avias,  fratres.  Adv.  Gentes.  p.  19.  - —  See  alfo 
p.  92,  93.  and  what  Laftantius  advances  on  this  fub- 
jecl,  upon  the  authority  of  Euhemerus  and  Ennius, 
lib.  i.  0.14.  and  Epitome  Div.  Inftitut.  torn.  2.  c.  13. 

of 


in  polijhed  Nations .  245 

of  the   fame   family  with  him,  and  of 
whom  he  was  chief b. 

R  3  From 

b  It  may  not  be  improper  to  obferve,  that,  if  the 
twelve  gods  of  Greece  had  not  been  known  to  be  of 
human  defcent,  Demades  could  never  have  thought  of 
adding  Alexander  to  that  number,  and  making  him 
the  thirteenth.  It  was  becaufe  Alexander  thought  him- 
felf  not  inferior  to  Dionyfus,  that  he  pleaded  his  ha 
ving  an  equal  right  with  him  to  the  worlhip  of  the  A- 
rabians.  Above,  p.  85,  86.  His  hope  of  becoming 
cne  of  the  gods  of  Egypt  (fee  above,  p.  168.)  muft 
have  been  founded  upon  the  fame  principle ;  and  the 
conduft  of  Demades  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  any 
other.  The  Athenians  indeed  were  offended  with  the 
orator  ;  but  it  was  (or»  Qvr,rov  O.VTOV  $v  rov  Aht^avogot  ovrct, 
tvsycu.-^£  TOU;  OAt>p.3rto4{)  becaufe  he  enrolled  Alexander, 
while  he  was  flill  a  mere  mortal  man,  amongil  the  gods 
who  inhabited  Clympus,  or  heaven.  Though  heaven 
was  peopled  from  the  earth,  yet  the  Athenians  judged 
it  impious  to  decree  thofe  honours  to  any  one  while  a 
man  only,  (for  Alexander  was  now  living,)  which 
were  peculiar  to  the  oldeft  of  their  gods.  ^lian.  Var. 
Hid.  1.  5.  c.  12.  Comp.  1.  2.  c.  19.  —  The  people  of 
Cyzicum  were  fomewhat  lefs  fcrupulous  ;  for  they  cal 
led  Adrian,  the  thirteenth  god,  r^crxai^xa-Tov  §cov.  So- 
crat.  Hift.  Ecclef.  1.  3.  €.23.  p.  205.  —  What  this 
hiftorian  relates  in  this  place  concerning  Cleomedes, 
that  the  oracle  required  men  to  honour  him  with  facri- 
fices,  u<;  pnxETi  SMJTOV  gam*,  utpote  qui  ncn  amplius  fit 
raortalis,  explains  the  motive,  on  which  the  Athenians 

ac~ted. 


246         Worjblp  of  human  Spirits 

From  the  whole  of  what  has  been  of 
fered  in  this  fe<5lion,  we  may  conclude, 
that,  amongft  the  Greeks,  however  they 
might  acknowledge  the  natural  gods,  yet 
the  dead  men  and  women,  whom  they 

adled,  in  a  manner  confident  with  the  fuppofition  of 
the  twelve  gods  having  been  once  men.  Philip  was  cal 
led  T£<ujcai&jc*ros  SEO?.  Stob.  Serm.  96.  p.  534. 

Mr.  Fell  affirms,  p.  24.  "  that  I  cannot  bring  any  de- 
"  cifive  evidence  to  mew,  that  fuch"  (that  is,  religious) 
"  worfhip  was  paid  to  a  human  fpirit  under  the  term 
"  Jupiter  "  I  do  not  know  how  any  writer  could  fur- 
niih  his  readers  with  more  decifive  evidence,  to  mew 
how  little  knowledge  he  had  of  the  fubjecl,  with  which 
he  would  feem  to  be  well  acquainted.  Without  ap 
pealing  to  the  facts  already  Hated,  I  would  obferve, 
thatVarro  (ap.  Tertullian.  Apol.  €.14.)  reckoned  up 
three  hundred  Jupiters  ;  and  that  probably  there  were 
many  more  ;  it  being  cuftomary  with  the  ancients  to 
give  this  name  to  thofe  eminent  perfons  who  either  firft 
founded  a  ftate,  or  contributed  greatly  to  it's  profpe- 
rity,  and  whom  they  raifed  to  the  rank  of  gods,  and 
worfhipped  as  fuch.  Thus  Ammon,  Dagon,  Belus, 
and  ^Eneas,  were  feverally  (tiled  Jupiter.  As  almoft 
every  country  had  it's  Jupiter,  fo  fome  countries  had 
feveral.  The  Lacedaemonians  beftowed  upon  their 
kings  two  prieftboods  ;  that  of  the  Lacedaemonian,  and 
that  of  the  celefttal,  Jupiter.  Kerodot.  1. 6.  c.  68. 
Upon  the  fcpulchre  of  Minos  in  Crete  was  this  infcrip- 
tion,  Ta  A<o$,  the  fepulchre  of  Jupiter.  Sir  If.  Newton's 
Short  Chronicle,  p.  22. 

vainly 


in  polijhed  Nations.  247 

vainly  deified,  were  the  more  immediate 
and  principal  objects  of  their  public  wor- 
ihip. 

SECT.     VI. 

//  remains  to  be  ftewn,  that  human  fpirits 
were  worfhipped  by  the  ROMANS. 

A  S  the  Romans  derived  their  religion 
from  Greece,  Egypt,  and  the  Eaft, 
we  are  naturally  led  to  expe6l  a  confor 
mity  between  their  objects  of  worfhip 
and  thofe  of  the  nations  here  fpecified ; 
in  which  it  has  been  already  proved,  that 
dead  men  and  women  were  deified. 

/Eneas,     from   whom     the    Romans 

claimed  to  be  defcended,  brought  from 

Troy  into  Italy  his  houfehold  gods\  who 

were  the  fouls  of  his  departed  anceftorsdj 

R  4  and 

c  Cum  fociis,  natoque,  penatibus,  et  magnis  dis. 

Virg.^En.III.  12. 
See  alfo  VIII.  679. 

''  The  Phrygian  penates,  in  their  addrefs  to  ^Eneas, 
after  making  mention  of  Dardanus,  add,  genus  a  quo 
frincife  noftrum.  JEn.  III.  148,  1 68.  See  Servius  in 
loc.  This  learned  commentator  fay.s,  Penates  funt  om- 

nes 


248         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

and  the  great  gods,  who  probably  were 
the  Samothracian  deities  filled  Cabirs,  or 
great  and  powerful  divinities e  (natives  of 
Phenicia,  fpoken  of  above f).  We  are 
farther  informed,  that  the  Trojan  prince 
eftabliflied  religious  ceremonies  in  ho 
nes  dii  qui  domi  coluntur.  ^En.  II.  514.  They  are 
fpoken  of  as  the  guardian  deities  of  Troy,  ^En.II.  293. 
More  will  be  faid  concerning  the  penates  in  this  feftion. 

e  T\z  penates  being  called  magni,  JEn.  IX.  258.  and 
magni  dii,  Macrob.  1.  3.  c.  4.  fome  fuppofe  that  the 
magni  dii  vyere  the  fame  as  the  penates  :  (Serv.ius,  on 
/En.  III.  12.)  but,  in  the  paffage  cited  above,  note  c, 
they  feem  to  be  diflinguifhed.  The  Phenicians,  who 
fettled  in  Samotbrace,  introduced  there  the  worihip  of 
the  Cabin  ;  and,  from  Samothrace,  their  myfteries  were 
probably  carried  into  Phrygia  by  Dardanus :  (fee  Plu 
tarch's  Camillas,  p.  139.)  and,  as  the  Cabirs  anfwer 
the  import  of  Virgil's  magni  fit:,  they  are  probably  here 
intended.  Some  think  that,  by  the  magni  diit  Virgil 
means  Jupiter,  Minerva,  and  Mercury.  Servius  on  JEn. 
VIII.  679.  III.  264.  Jineas,  it  was  generally  faid, 
brought  into  Italy  the  image  of  Pallas  or  Minerva ; 
(Plutarch,  ubi  fupra  ;)  who,  according  to  Virgil,  was 
the  invent  refs  of  oil.  Georg.  I.  15. 

f  P.  140.  where  it  might  have  been  obferved,  that, 
though  Herodotus  mentions,  he  does  not  appear  to  fa 
vour,  the  opinion  of  thofe  who  thought  the  Cabirs  to 
t>e  the  fons  of  Vulcan. 

nour 


in  polifbed  Nations.  249 

nour  of  his  father's  genius g  ;  inftrufted 
the  people  in  the  facred  rites  due  to  the 
dead g ;  and  was  himfelf,  after  his  deceafe, 
worfhipped  under  the  title  of  Jupiter 
Indiges h.  From  thefe  fa£ls  it  appears, 
that,  both  in  the  country  he  had  left, 
and  amongft  his  own  dependents  in 
Italy,  gods  of  human  origin  were  wor 
fhipped,  and  reprefented  by  facred  ima 
ges  \ 

£  Mle  patris  genio  folemnia  dona  ferebat : 
Hinc  populi  ritus  edidicere  pios. 

Ovid.  Fafti,  1.  II.  545. 

Concerning  the  worfhip  of  Anchifes,  fee  Virg.  JEn. 
VfL  133.  and  V.  58,  59.  Compare  Laclant.  1.  i. 
c.  15.  p.  66,  67. 

h  Situs  eft,  (^Eneas,)  quemcunque  eum  dicijusfaf- 
que  eft,  fuper  Numicium  flumen  :  Jo<vem  indigetem  ap 
pellant.  Liv.  I.  2. 

Illic  fan6lus  eris,  quum  te  veneranda  Numici 
Unda  deum  coelo  miferit  indigetem. 

Tibull.  II.  5,  45. 

Concerning  the  worfhip  of  ./Eneas,  fee  Dionyf.  H:ili- 
carn.  Antiq.  Rom.  p.  42. 

*  The  penates  which  JEneas  brought  into  Italy  are 
called  lignea  <vel  lapidea  figilla.  Servius  on^En.  III.  148. 
from  Varro.  See  Dionyf.  Halicarn.  Antiq.  Rom.  1.  i. 
c.6/.  p.  53.  ed.  Oxon. 

The 


250         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

The  Romans,    it  is  true,    were  for 
bidden  by  Numa  to  reprefent  the  gods 
either  under  a  human  or  brutal  form  ; 
and  accordingly  had  no  fuch  reprefenta- 
tions  of  them  for  the  firft  hundred  and 
feventy   years  k.        This  feems  to   have 
given  occafion  to  a  late  writer  '  to  aflert, 
<e  that  the  Grecian  idolatry  was  not  ad- 
<e  mitted  amongft  the  Romans  for  above 
{c  an  hundred  and  feventy  years   after 
"  Romulus."     If,  by  the  Grecian  idola 
try,  the  gentleman  means  the  worihip 
of  images,  his  allertion  could  not  anfvver 
his  defign  of  refuting  what  was  advanced 
concerning  the  heathen  gods  in  the  Dif- 
fertation  on  Miracles  :  but,  if  he  thereby 
means  the  worfhip  of  deified  men,  (which 
his  argument  plainly  requires,)    he  was 
certainly  under  a  great  miftake.      Ro 
mulus,  who  was  killed   in  the   thirty- 

k  Plutarchi  Numa,  p.  65.  Varro,  ap.  Auguft.  Civ. 
Dei,  1.  4.  0.31.  —  Statues  and  images  were  afterwards 
introduced  at  Rome.  Florus,  I.  5.  Tertullian.  Apol. 
c.  25. 

i  Fell,  p.  14. 

feventh 


in  polijhed  Nations.  251 

feventh  year  of  Rome,  had  divine  ho 
nours  decreed  to  him  by  the  people ; 
the  fenate  concurring  in  raifmg  him  to 
the  rank  of  a  god,  though  they  abhor 
red  him  as  a  king  m.  Nay,  Nurna,  his 
immediate  fucceffor,  (that  very  Numa 
who  forbad  the  ufe  of  images,  and  is 
thought  by  fome  to  have  accomplished 
fome  fuch  reformation,  amongft  the  Ro 
mans,  as  Zoroafter  is  faid  to  have  done 
amongft  the  Perfians,)  built  a  temple, 
appointed  facrifices,  and  added  a  prieft, 
in  honour  of  Romulus n. 

Amongft  other  laws  refpecling  reli 
gion,  he  ordained  the  following  :  Let 
all  honour  the  ancient  gods  of  heaven,  and 
thofe  whofe  merits  have  carried  them  thi 
ther  ;  fuch  as  Hercules,  Bacchus ,  Mfcula- 

m  The  fenators,  who  had  murdered  Romulus,  per- 
fuaded  the  people  that  he  was  tranflated  to  the  gods  ; 
and  that,  having  been  an  indulgent  king,  he  would 
now  be  to  them  a  propitious  deity.  Plutarchi  Romulus, 

P-  34>  35- 

n  Dionyf.  Hal.  vol.  i.  p.  119.  Oxon.  —  Plutarchi 
Numa,  p.  64.  C.  —  Liv.  I.  20. 

pita, 


252         WorJIrip  of  human  Spirits 

fiusy  Caftor,  Pollux,  and^uifinus9.  By 
the  ancient  gods  of  heaven p,  we  are  not  to 
underftand  gods  that  exifted  from  eter 
nity  q,  but  fuch  as  had  been  in  heaven 

from 

0  Divos,  et  eos  qui  coeleftes  Temper  habiti,  colunto, 
et  olios  quos  endo  ccelo  merita  vocaverint  ;  Herculem, 
Liberum,  ^fculapium,  Caftorem,  Pollucem,  Quiri- 
num.  Cicero,  de  Legibus,  1.  2.  c.  8. 

P  So  Hook  (Roman  Hiftory,  vol.  I.  p.  59.)  tranf- 
lates  cceleftes  femper  habiti  ;  whom  I  have  followed,  be- 
caufe  it  does  not  appear  he  had  any  particular  hypo- 
thefis  to  fupport  by  this  translation. 

q  Arnobius,  adv.  Gentes,  p.  92,  93.  well  obferves : 
Ipfi  dii  immortales,  quorum  modo  aditis  templa,  et  nu- 
mina  fuppliciter  adoratis,  ficut  veilris  literis  atque  opi- 
nionibus  traditur,  non  efle,  non  fciri,  ab  temporibus 
cceperunt  certis,  et  impofitis  nominum  appellationibus 
nuncupari  ?  Nam,  fi  verum  eft,  ex  Saturno  atque  ejus 
uxore  Jovem  fuis  cum  fratribus  procreatum  ;  ante  nup- 
tias  et  partus  Opis  nufquam  fuerat  Jupiter  tarn  fupre- 
mus,  quam  Stygius  :  nufquam  fali  dominus,  nufquam 

juno. Rurfus  vero,  fi  Liber,  Venus,  Diana, 

Mercurius,  Apollo,  Hercules,  Mufae,  Tyndaridaj  Caf- 
tores,  ignipotenfque  Vulcanus,  Jove  patre  funt  pro- 
did,  et  genitore  Saturnio  procreati,  antequam  Memo- 
ria,  quam  Alcmena,  Maia,  Juno,  Latona,  Leda,  Di- 
one,  turn  et  Semela,  Diefpitri  fadlas  funt  comprefiio- 
nibus  fcetas,  nufquam  et  hi  gentium,  nee  in  aliqua 
parte  rerum  fuere  naturas,  fed  ex  conventu  Jovis  infe- 
minati  et  nati  funt,  et  aliquem  fenfum  fui  habere  cce^ 

perunt. 


/;;  polijhed  Nations .  253 

from  the  beginning^  or  from  the  earlieji 
ages.  To  thefe,  fix  more  were  added  in 
later  times,  who  are  univerfally  allowed 
to  have  been  men,  but  who  were  emi 
nently  diftinguifhed  from  many  other 
heroes,  by  being  admitted  into  the  com 
munity  of  the  celeftial  or  Olympian 
gods.  Both  thefe  orders  of  deities  the 
people  were  required  to  worfhip  by  Nu- 
ma  5  which  is  a  demonftration  that,  in 
his  time,  notwithstanding  his  prohibi 
tion  of  images,  (which  had  been  before 
allowed,)  the  Romans  acknowledged 
mortal  gods.  This  agrees  with  what 
has  been  obferved  concerning  the  Ger 
mans,  Perfians,  and  Phenicians  at  Ga- 

perunt.  Et  hi  quoque  a  tempore  efTe  cceperunt  certo, 
et,  in  numero  numinum,  facrorum  ad  cseremonias  in- 
vocari.  —  The  natural  gods  were  called  eternal \  (Diod, 
Sic.  p.  14.)  and  to  thefe  Varro  refers  when  he  fays, 
Deos  alios  effe,  qui  ab  initio  certi  et  fempiterni  funt. 
He  adds,  Alios,  qui  immortales  ex  hominibus  facli  funt. 
Servius  on  Virg.  ^En.  VIII.  275.  —  It  is  impoffible  to 
admit  the  eternity  of  the  ancient  gods  of  heaven,  becaufe. 
they  were  tranflated  thither  from  the  earth  ;  as  will  be 
ftiewn  immediately. 

des, 


254          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

des,  who  worshipped  human  fpirits, 
though  they  had  no  images. 

The  law  of  Numa,  juft  now  cited, 
became  a  law  of  the  twelve  tables r,  and 
remained  in  force  in  all  fucceeding  times. 
From  hence  it  follows,  that  human  fpi- 
rits  were,  in  every  age,  vvorfhipped  at 
Rome,  and  even  were  the  principal  ob- 
je6ls  of  the  eftabliflied  worfhip  in  that 
city.  For  the  ancient  gods  of  heaven, 
fpoken  of  in  the  laws  of  the  twelve  ta 
bles,  were  no  other  than  the  following 
twelve  fuperior  gods  of  the  Romans, 

Juno,  Vefta,  Minerva,  Ceres,  Diana,  Venus,  Mars, 
Mercurius,  Jovis,  Neptunus,  Vulcanus,  Apollo'; 

and  thefe  were  the  fame  with  the  twelve 
fuperior  gods  of  the  Greeks,  who  were 
proved  in  the  laft  feflion  to  be  no  other 

*  Laws  of  the  twelve  tables,   tab.  2.  fed:.  4. 

8  Thefe  gods  were  often  fimply  called  the  twelve 
gods.  They  were  termed  celeftial  and  Olympian  ;  and, 
both  in  Greece  and  at  Rome,  were  confidered  as  gods 
of  the  highefl  rank  and  dignity.  They  were  worfhip- 
ped  in  conjunction.  We  read  of  the  altar  of  the  12 
gods.  Plutarch,  in  Nicia,  p.  531.  F.  and  of  a  fupper 
called  ^ixaStoj.  Sueton.  Augufl.  70. 

than 


in  polljhed  Nations  .  2  c  5 

than  deified  men  and  women.  All  the 
arguments,  ufed  to  eftablifh  the  huma 
nity  of  the  one,  conclude  equally  with 
refpeft  to  the  other.  I  (hall  here  pro 
duce  fome  proofs  of  the  human  origin 
of  the  twelve  gods  of  the  Romans,  which 
will  confirm  what  has  been  already  of 
fered  concerning  thofe  of  the  Greeks. 

Cicero,  the  moft  learned  as  well  as 
eloquent  of  all  the  Romans,  who  had 
paid  particular  attention  to  the  fubjeft 
of  the  heathen  theology,  and  was  him- 
felf  a  prieft  of  high  rank,  contends, 
"  that  the  whole  heaven  was  almoft  en- 
"  tirely  filled  with  the  human  race  ; 
<c  that  even  the  fuperior  order  of  gods, 
"  or  gods  of  the  greater  nations,  were 
"  originally  natives  of  this  lower 
<c  world,  as  could  be  proved  from 
"  the  writers  of  Greece  ;  that  their  fe- 
"  pulchres  were  ftiewn  openly  in  that 
"  country;  and  that  the  traditions  con- 

cerning  them  were  preferved  in  the 

myfteries." 


" 

" 


256         WorJJjip  of  human  Spirits 

cc  myfteriesV  If  thefe  fafts  had  not 
been  too  notorious  to  be  concealed,  Ci 
cero  would  not  have  appealed  to  them 
in  this  open  manner  ;  knowing,  as  he 
did,  the  difcredit  it  brought  upon  the 
public  religion.  He  himfelf  has  put 
the  following  language  into  the  mouth 
of  Cotta  :  tc  Are  not  thofe  void  of  all 
"  religion,  who  teach,  that  the  brave, 
cc  illuftrious,  and  potent,  amongft  men, 
tc  become  gods  after  death;  and  that 
£C  thefe  very  perfons  are  at  this  time  the 
"  objefts  of  our  prayers  and  folemn 
"  worfhip"?" 

1  Quid  ?  totum  prope  ccelum,  ne  plures  perfequar, 
nonne  humano  genere  completum  eft  ?  Si  vero  fcrutari 
vetera,  et  ex  his  ea,  qua?  fcriptores  Gra^cke  prodide- 
runt,  eruere  concr  ;  ipfi  illi,  majorum  gentium  dii  qui 
habentur,  hinc  a  nobis  profefti  in  ccelum  reperientur. 
Quaere,  quorum  demonftrantur  fepulchra  in  Grascia  : 
reminifcere,  quoniam  es  initiatus,  qua?  traduntur  in 
myfteriis :  turn  denique,  quam  late  hoc  pateat,  intel- 
liges.  Tufc.  Quceft.  1.  I.  c.  12. 

u  Quid?  qui  aut  fortes,  aut  claros,  aut  potentes  vi- 
ros,  tradunt  poft  mortem  ad  deos  perveniile,  eofque 
cfie  ipfo?,  quos  nos  colere,  precari,  venerarique  folea- 
mus,  nonne  expertes  funt  religionum  omnium?  Cicer* 

Nat.  Deor.   1.  i.  c.  42. 

St. 


in  polifhed  Nations .  257 

St.  Auftin  w  confirms  the  teftimony  of 
Cicero,  when  he  fays :  cc  You  cannot 
"  find,  or  can  hardly  find,  in  all  the 
cc  writings  of  the  Heathens,  any  gods 
"  but  fuch  as  had  been  men  -,  neverthe- 
"  lefs  to  all  of  them  they  pay  divine 
<c  honours,  as  if  they  had  never  be- 
<c  longed  to  the  human  race."  And, 
though  Varro  endeavoured  to  apply  what 
is  related  of  the  twelve  fuperior  gods, 
and  many  others,  to  the  parts  or  ele 
ments  of  the  world,  yet  St.  Auftin  fays, 
they  were  difcovered  to  have  been  men  *. 
And,  indeed,  if  the  twelve  fuperior  gods 
had  not  been  fuch,  how  came  it  to  pafs 
that  fix  men  viz.  Hercules,  Bacchus, 

w  Non  attendunt,  in  omnibus  literis  paganorum,  aut 
non  inveniri,  aut  vix  inveniri  deos,  qui  non  homines 
fuerint  ;  omnibus  tamen  honores  ftudeant  cxhibere  di- 
vinos,  quaii  nihil  unquam  humanitatis  habuerint, 
Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  26. 

x  Ipfi  etiam  majorum  gentium  dii,  quos  Cicero,  in 
Tufculanis,  tacitis  nominibus  videtur  attingere,  Jupi 
ter,  Juno,  Saturnus,  Vulcanus,  Veita,  et  alii  plurimi, 
quos  Varro  conatur  ad  mundi  partes  five  elementa  tranf- 
ferre,  homines  fuilTe  produntur.  Id.  ib.  c.  5. 

S  ./Efculapiusa 


25  8          Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

./Efculapius,  Caftor,  Pollux,  and  Qui- 
rinus,  were  raifed  to  the  fame  rank  with 
the  twelve  ?  Cicero  fpeaks  of  Romulus, 
and  many  others,  as  received  into  heaven, 
juft  as  new  citizens  are  enrolled  amongjl  the 
old7  y  and,  confequently,  as  becoming 
entitled  to  equal  privileges  with  the  an 
cient  celeftial  gods.  According  to  Pin 
dar,  Hercules  dwelt  with  Jupiter  z;  and 
both  are  reprefented  together,  on  old  al 
tars,  with  this  infcription,  To  the  great 
gods*.  And  very  probably  there  was  no 
greater  difference  b,  between  the  new  and 
the  old  gods  of  heaven,  than  what  might 

fubfift 

y  Romulum  noftri  habent,  aliofque  complures,  quos 
quafi  novos  et  afcripticios  cives  in  coelum  receptos  pu- 
taut.  Cicero,  Nat,  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  15. 

Romulus  in  coelo  cum  diis  agit  aevum. 

Ennius,  ap.  Cicer.  I.  Tufc«  Q^  c,  12, 
Bacchus  and  Hercules  were  {Hied  Olympian*  Diodor. 
Sic.  1.4.  p.  261. 


»aiu.    Pindar.  Iflhm.  Od.  IV.  94,  99. 
a  See  above,  p.  173.  note9,  p.  174.  notes  x  and  y, 

b  The  difference  that  was  made  between  the  old  and 
r.ew  celelUal  gods  was  fometimes  to  the  advantage  of 

the 


in  poliftted  Nations.  259 

fubfiit  between  the  old  gods  them- 
felves. 

Three  of  the  latter  (viz.  Jupiter, 
Juno,  and  Minerva)  feem  to  have  been 
more  diftinguifhed  by  the  Romans c  than 
the  other  nine.  They  were  the  penates 
or  guardian  deities  of  the  Roman  ftate 
and  people d.  And  though  Macrobius, 
82  as 

the  latter.  —  Quid  ?  Apollinem,  Vulcanum,  Mercu- 
rium,  caeteros,  decs  efle  dices  :  de  Hercule,  ^Efcula- 
pio,  Libero,  Caftore,  Polluce,  dubitabis  ?  At  hi  qui- 
dem  coluntur  aeque  atque  illi  ;  apud  quofdam  etiam 
multo  magis.  Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  1.3.  c.  18. 

e  Particularly  by  Cicero,  in  the  clofe  of  his  fpeech 
againft  Verres  :  Nunc  tet  Jupiter,  Optime,  Maxime,  te- 
que,  Juno  regina,  et  Minerva !  And  by  Livy,  1.  3. 
§.  17.  Jupiter,  Optimus,  Maximus,  Juno  regina,  et 
Minerva,  alii  dii  deaeque,  obiidentur.  Concerning  thefe 
three  deities  Tertullian  is  fuppofed  to  fpeak  :  Ante  has 
tres  arae  trinis  diis  parent,  magniss  potentibus }  tvalenti" 
bus.  De  Spedac.  c.  4. 

d  Macrobius  ftiles  thefe  three  deities  penates.  Saturn. 
\f  3.  c.  4.  And  Livy,  (1.  3.  §.  17.)  after  mentioning 
Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Minerva,  in  his  account  of  the  Ca 
pitol's  being  befieged,  adds,  Caflra  fervorum  publicos 
veftros  penates  tenent.  Jupiter  is  called  by  Cicero 
cuftos  hujus  ur&is,  in  Catil.  1.  3.  §.  162.  The  fame  title 
is  given  to  Minerva.  Id.  Orat.  proDomo,  57.  And  Juno 

is 


260         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

as  a  philofopher,  explains  the  penates 
phyfically  %  as  he  alfo  does  the  other  hea 
then  gods  \  yet  Servius  fays,  that  they  were 
human  fouls,  which,  by  certain  ceremonies^ 
were  converted  into  gods f .  As  to  the  of 
fice  which  the  Romans  affigned  to  Ju 
piter,  Juno,  and  Minerva,  as  their  guar 
dian  deities  and  prefervers  of  the  empire, 
they  affigned  the  feme  to  thofe  emperors 
whom  they  reprefented  on  the  reverfe  of 
the  medals  of  thefe  three  deities 8. 

is  filled  confervatrix  in  ancient  infcriptions.  Gruter. 
p.  25.  Thefe  three  deities  were  joined  together  in  the 
Capitol.  Spence's  Polymetis,  p.  58.  note  5 3.  —  Livy 
(1.  IIJ.  17.)  diflinguifhes  th«  penates  into  /r/v*f<rah4 
public. 

•  e  Penates  efle  dixerunt,  per  quos  penitus  fpiramusj 
per  quos  habemus  corpus,  per  quos  rationem  animi 
poffidemus.  Efie  autem  medium  aethera  Jovem,  Juno- 
nem  vero  imum  ae'ra  cum  terra,  et  Minervam  fummum 
setheris  cacumen.  Macrob.  Saturnal.  1.3.  0.4. 

f  According  to  Servius,  (J£\\.  III.  168.)  LabeOj  in 
Hbris  qui  appellantur  de  diis  ammalibus,  (quibus  origo 
animalis  eft,)  ait,  ejfe  qu&dam  facrat  quibus  animte  bu- 
mante  <vertantur  in  deos,  qui  appellantur  animales,  quod 
de  animi s  fi ant.  Hi  autem  funt  dii  penates  et  viales.  — 
See  Augufl.  Civ.  Dei,  1.9.  c.  11. 

g   See  Spence's  Polymetis,   p.  58.   note  53. 

As 


in  poli/hed  Nations*  261 

As  three  of  the  twelve  gods  were 
ttiore  honoured  by  the  Romans  than  the 
other  nine,  fo  one  of  thefe  three  (viz. 
Jupiter)  had  fome  pre-eminence  af- 
figned  him  above  the  other  two.  He 
was  generally  ftiled,  the  BEST  and  the 
GREATEST  h.  But  Cicero,  who  gives 
him  both  thefe  titles,  does  neverthelefs 
rank  him,  as  we  have  feen,  amongft  the 
natives  of  this  lower  world.  Befides  the 
general  proofs,  produced  here  and  in 
the  preceding  fe6tion,  to  fhew  that  the 
whole  band,  of  which  Jupiter  was  chief, 
were  of  human  defcent,  there  is  diftinft 
evidence  that  he  himfelf  in  particular 
was  confidered  in  this  view  by  the  Ro 
mans,  as  well  as  by  the  Greeks.  At 
Rome,  as  well  as  in  Greece,  he  was  de- 
fcribed  as  the  fon  of  Saturn,  In  the 
very  Capitol  they  placed  the  ftatue  of 
his  nurfe,  and  gave  him  the  (hield  cal 
led  aegis  ^  becaufe  made  of  the  fkin  of 

h  Jupiter  a  majoribus  noilris  optimus  maximus  dicitur. 
Cicero,  de  Nat,  Deor.   1.  2.  c.  25. 

S  3  the 


262         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

the  fhe-goat  which  afforded  him  nourifh- 
ment1.  In  the  Capitol  like  wife  they 
placed  a  cufhion  or  pallet  on  which  be 
might  repofe  k  himfelf,  and  provided  for 
him  a  magnificent  entertainment !.  Thefe 
circumitances,  repugnant  as  they  are  to 
every  rational  conception  of  the  Creator 

1  Quid  de  ipfo  Jove  fenferunt,  qui  ejus  nutricem  in 
Capitolio  pofuerunt  ?  Quid  illic  facit  fcutum  illud 
Jovis,  quod  appellant  atgida?  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  6. 
c,  7.  De  Conf.  Evang.  1.  i.  c.  23. 

k  In  Jovis  epnlo,  num  alibi  quam  in  Capitolio,  pul- 
vinar  fufcipi  poteft  r  Liv.  V.  52.  —  Habent  dii  leftos  ; 
atque,  ut  ftratis  poffint  mollioribus  incubare,  pulvi- 
norum  tollitur  atque  excitatur  impreflio.  Arnob.  adv. 
Gentes,  p.  238. 

1  Jovis  epulum  eras  eft.     Jupiter  enim  coenat,   mag ; 

nifque  implendus  eft  dapibus,   jarndudum  inedia  gefti- 

ens,   et  anniverfaria  interje&ione  jejunus.   Id.  ib.          i 

Ma£lant  opimas  ac  pingues  hoftias  Deo,  quali  efuri- 

enti ;    profundunt  vina,    tanquam  iitienti.   Ladl.  Div. 

Inft.   1.6.   c.  2.      See  alfo  c.  i.  —  This  pradtice  was 

founded  upon  an  ancient  opinion,  that  the  ghofts  of  the 

dead  really  fed  upon   the   provifion   carried   to   their 

tombs.     See  Athenseus,  p.  427.    and  Kennett's  Roman 

Antiquities,  p.  361.  and  Potter's  Antiq.  vol.2,  p.  251, 

257.  —  When  their  bodies  were  burned,   it  was  cufto- 

mary  to  throw  bread  into  the  funeral  pile.    Terence, 

Eunuch.  III.  2.  38.    Catull.  Carm.  60* 

of 


in  polijhed  Nations.  263 

of  the  univerfe,  accorded  with  their  no 
tion  of  gods  that  had  been  men  ;  who, 
in  the  other  world,  were  fuppofed  to 
ftand  in  need  of  the  fame  accommoda 
tions  which  had  been  agreeable  or  ufe- 
ful  to  them  in  this ;  and  were  accord 
ingly  fupplied  with  them  by  their  fur- 
vivors. 

Befides  the  gods  already  fpecified,  the 
Romans  had  others  of  the  fame  earthly 
origin.  Janus,  to  whom  they  always 
offered  the  firft  facrifices m,  and  whom 
they  addrefled  firft  in  ail  their  prayers n* 
was  an  ancient  king  of  Italy  °,  who  had 
this  precedence  in  their  worfhip,  be- 
caufe  he  was  the  firft  who  built  tem 
ples,  and  inftituted  the  ceremonies  of 

111  Jane,  tibi  primo  thura  merumque  fero.  Ovid. 
Fafti,  f.  171.  See  note  P  below. 

n  Janus  —  quern  in  cun&is  anteponitis  precibus. 
Arnob.  adv.  Gent.  1.  3.  p.  117.  —  See  alfo  Macrob. 
Sat.  1.  i.  c.p.  p.  158. 

0  Janum  cum  Saturno  regnaffe  memoravimus.  Ma 
crob.  Sat.  1.  i.  c.  9.  init.  —  See  below,  notes,  %  w, 
*,  », 

S  4  religion. 


264         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

religion  p.  We  are  told  by  Plutarch, 
that  he  was  faid  to  have  changed  the 
favage  nature  of  man  into  a  gentle  and 
focial  difpofition  ;  and  that  his  being  re- 
prefented  with  two  faces  had  a  reference 
to  thefe  two  different  forms  and  condi 
tions  of  human  life  q.  As  to  the  phyfi- 
cal  explications  of  this  god,  they  are  va- 
.  rious  and  contradiftory ;  for  he  is  faid 
to  be  the  chaos,  the  world,  the  year,  the 
fun,  and  many  other  things  r.  He  might 
be  explained  as  a  fymbol  of  whatever 
the  human  fancy  could  fuggeft :  but  the 
received  hiftory  s  of  him  exhibited  him 

.  :P  Xenon,  primo  Italicon,  tradit  Janum  in  Italia  pri- 
mum  dis  templa  *  feciffe,  et  ritus  inftituifTe  facrorum  ; 
ideo  eum  in  facrificiis  praeFationem  meruifle  perpetuam. 
Macrob.  ubi  fupra.  "- 

i  Plutarchi  Numa,  p.  72.  —  Macrobius  (ubi  fupra) 
fays  :  Quid  am  ideo  eum  dici  bifrontem  putant,  quod 
et  pra^terita  fciverit,  et  futura  provident. 

1  See  Arnob.  p.  117.  Macrob.  Sat.  1.  I.  €.9. 
Ovid.  Fafti,  I.  103. 

3  Arnobius  (p.  117.)  pleads  that  the  phyfical  expli 
cations  deftroyed  the  literal  hiftory  of  Janus  ;  quern  fe- 
runty  Caelo  atque  Hecata  procreatum,  in  Italia  regnajfe  pri- 
rnum,  Janiculi  oppidi  conditorem  :  •  >  "  •  atque  ita  per  <vof 
del  nomen  eraditur. 

under 


in  potifned  Nations .  265 

under  the  character  of  a  king,  who  had 
divine  honours  decreed  to  him  for  his 
merit  towards  his  fubjects  '.  Even  Sa- 
turn  (before  whom,  Tertullian  obferves, 
the  Heathens  had  no  god  at  all,  and 
from  whom  they  began  their  reckoning  of 
all  their  gods,  not  excepting  thofe  of  the 
greateft  diftinclion)  is  fpoken  of  in  hif- 
tory  no  otherwife  than  as  a  man  u.  lie 
arrived  in  Italy  in  the  reign  of  Janus, 
and  became  a  partner  of  his  kingdom  ". 

*  Regnante  Jano,  omnium  domos  religione  et  fan  £11- 
tate  fuifTe  munitas  :  idcircoque  ei  divinos  honores  ciTe 
decretos.  Macrob.  Sat.  1.  i.  c.  9. 

"  Ante  Saturnum  deus  penes  vos  nemo  elt.  Ab  illo 
cenfus  totius,  vel  poticris,  vel  notions,  divinitatis. 
Itaque  quod  de  origine  conftiterit,  id  et  de  potentate 
conveniet.  Saturnum  itaque,  quantum  litene  decent, 
neque  Diodorus  Grsecus,  aut  Thallus,  neque  Caflius 
"Severus,  aut  Cornelius  Nepos,  neque  ullus  commen 
tator  hujufmodi  antiquitatinn,  aliud  quam  horninem 
promulgaverunt.  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  10.  See  above, 
p.  252.  note  9. 

w  Hie  igitur  Janus,  cum  Saturnum  claffe  perve£ium 
excepiffet  hofpitio,  et,  ab  eo  edo&us  peritiam  ruris, 
ferum  ilium  et  rudem  ante  fruges  cognitas  viftum  i« 
melius  redegiflet,  regni  eum  focictate  muneravit. 
Macrob.  Sat.  1.  i.  c.  7.  p.  151. 

Under 


266         WorfJoip  cf  human  Spirits 

Under  his  equitable  adminiftration,  no 
one  was  a  flave,  and  all  things  were 
common:  which  was  the  reafon  why, 
in  the  Saturnalia,  flaves  fat  down  with 
their  matters,  and  all  people  were  on  a 
level*.  Tertullian,  in  proof  of  Saturn's 
being  a  man,  urges  the  Romans'  afcri- 
bing  to  him  the  invention  of  writing, 
and  coining  money  with  the  king's 
image7.  Others  relate,  what  equally 
ferves  our  purpofe,  that  Janus,  the  firft 
money  he  ftamped,  imprefled  on  one 
fide  the  image  of  himfelf,  and  on  the 
other  a  fhip,  in  memory  of  Saturn,  who 
came  to  Italy  by  fhip z.  It  was  alfo  in 
honour  of  Saturn  that  Italy  was  called 

*  Rex  Saturnus  tantse  juftitiae  fuifie  traditur,  ut  ne- 
que  fervierit  fub  illo  quifquam,  &c.  Juftin.  1.  43.  c.  I. 

y  Ab  ipfo  primum  tabulae,  et  imagine  fignatusnura- 
mus,  et  inde  serario  pnefidet.  Tertull.  Apol.  c.  10. 

z  Macrob.  Sat.  1.  i.  c.  7.  p.  151.  Ovid.  FafH,  f. 
235-240.  —  From  this  circumflance  it  appears,  that 
Saturn,  though  he  reigned  in  Italy,  was  a  foreigner. 
Pezron  maintains,  that  he  was  that  Saturn  who  was 
the  Ton  of  Uranus,  the  firft  king  of  the  Titans,  and 
who  reigned  over  Europe,  Afia,  and  part  of  Africa. 
Antiq.  of  Nations*  b.  I.  ch.  JO. 

Saturnia. 


in  polifhed  Nations.  267 

Saturnia  a.  Now,  if  the  anceftor  of  the 
gods  was  a  man,  we  cannot  be  at  a  lofs 
to  know  what  his  dependents  were  b. 

That    religious  worfhip,    which  the 
Romans  and  other  heathen  nations  paid 
to  dead  men,  was  not  confined  to  fuch 
eminent  perfons  as  thofe  already  men 
tioned  5    but  feems,  in  fome  degree,  to 
have  been  extended   to  all.      I  fay  no 
thing  of  the  philofophers  who  taught, 
that  the  fouls  of  men  'were  demons c.     It  is 
more  material  to  our  prefent  purpofe  to 
obferve,  that  the  civil  theology,  the  pub 
lic  inftitutions  of  religion,  and  the  cur 
rent  language,  were  founded  upon  the 
general  belief  of  the  fame  opinion.     The 
dead  were  denominated  dii  manes ;  as  ap 
pears   from   the  teftimony  of  the   an 
cients d,  and  the  infcription  upon  their 

a  Italia,  regis  nomine,  Saturnia  appellata  clt.  Juflin. 
ubi  fupra.  —  See  alfo  Tertullian,  Apol.  c.  10. 

b  See  p.  265.   note  u. 

c  Plotinus,   cited  below,  note  s. 

d  Varro  dicit,  omnes  ab  his  mortucs  exiftimari  ma 
nes  deos.  Auguft,  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  26. 

fepulchral 


268          Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

fepulchral  monuments  e.  Some  learned 
men  indeed  have  maintained,  that  the 
dii  manes  were  certain  gods  who  took 
care  of  fouls  or  ghofts ;  but  the  phrafe 
does  not  import  Cf  the  gods  of  ghofts/' 
but  <c  the  gods  ghofts";  and  the  ufe 
and  application  of  it  in  ancient  writers 
determine  it  to  this  fenfe  f.  Some  of 

the 

*  The  infcription  was,  D.  M.   or  Dis  Manibusj 

f  The  following  paffages  in  Virgil  clearly  mew  that 
the  word  manes  is  applied  to  ghofts.  Stant  manibus  aree» 
./En.  III.  63.  —  Manifque  vecabat  Hefloreum  ad  tumu- 
lum.  303.  —  Noflurnos  ciet  manis.  IV.  490.  See  alfo 
387.  —  Manifque  Acker onte  remijjos.  V.  99.  —  Magna 
manis  ter  <uoce  evoca<vi.  VI.  506.  —  In  the  fame  fenfe  is 
the  word  ufed  by  Juvenal.  EJJe  aliquos  manes t  et  fub- 
terranea  regna.  Sat.  II.  149.  —  Hence  manes  is  put  for 
the  place  of  the  dead  :  Manefque  profundi,  Virg.  Geoiv 
I.  243.  and  for  the  remains  of  the  deceafed,  either  his 
corpfe  or  his  bones  and  alhes :  Nunc  non  e  manibus 
illis  —  nafcentur  <viol<£  ?  Periius,  Sat.  I.  38.  Thofe 
who  thought  the  foul  periihed  with  the  body  faid,  we 
ihould  become  cinis,  et  manes,  et  fabula.  Ver.  152.— 
Horace  fpeaks  the  fame  language  :  F  alula  manes.  L.  I., 
Ode  IV.  1 6.  —  Manes  cannot  have  a  different  mean 
ing  when  the  word  dii  is  joined  with  it.  The  follow 
ing  palTage  of  Horace  is  a  proof  of  this  point : 

Petamque 


in  polijhed  Nations,  269 

the  philofophers  limited  the  word  manes 
to  good  ghofts g ;  but  it  feems  to  have 
been  applied  to  all  ghofts,  both  in 

\ 

Petamque  vultus  umbra  curvis  unguibus  : 
Quas  vis  deorum  eft  manium.    Epod.  V.  93. 

Compare  Virg.  JEn.  IV.  385-388.  When  Seneca 
fays,  (Ep.  86.)  In  ipfa  Scipionis  Africani  -villa  jacens, 
hac  tibifcribo,  adoratis  manibus  ejus,  does  he  not  mean 
that  Scipio  himfelf,  or  his  ghoft,  was  the  object  of  his 
worfhip  ?  See  the  next  note,* 

£  Maries  animae  'dicuntur  melioris  meriti,  quae  in 
corpore  noftro  genii  dicuntur.  Servius,  on  Virg.  j£n. 
III.63.  But  this  learned  commentator  miftakes  in 
afcribing  this  feritiment  to  Apuleius ;  who,  after  fay 
ing  that  the  good  ghofts  were  called  lares,  and  the  mif- 
chievous  ones  larvae,  adds,  Cum  vero  incertum  eft  quaj 
cuique.eorum  fortitio  evenerit,  utrum  lar  fit,  an  larva  ; 
nomine  manem  deum  nuncupant.  Scilicet  et  honoris 
gratia  dei  vocabulum  additum  eft.  Quippe  tantum  eos 
deos  appellant,  &c.  De  Deo  Socrat.  torn.  2.  p.  689. 
ed.  Delph.  —  Plotinus  taught,  Animas  hominum  dx- 
jnonas  eiTe,  et  ex  hominibus  fieri  lares,  fi  meriti  boni 
fmt  ;  lermtres,  five  larvas,  fi  mali  :  manes  autem  cum 
incertum  eft  bonorum  eos,  five  malorum,  efle  rnerito- 
rum.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.9.  c.  u.  —  Thofe  who 
confidered  the  mams  as  good  ghofts  made  them  the 
fame  as  the  lares.  In  Jucis  habitant  manes  piorum,  qui 
lares  viales  funt.  Servius  on  ^En.  III.  302. 

common 


270         Worfbip  of  human  Spirits 

common  life  h,  and  in  performing  the 
rites  of  religion  *.  <  It  is  not 

only  from  the  titles,  given  to  the  de- 
ceafed,  that  we  may  infer  a  belief  of 
their  divinity  ;  the  fame  conclufion  may 
be  drawn  from  the  religious  rites  *  infti- 
tuted  in  their  honour,  which  were  per 
formed  every  day  \  and  more  efpecially 
on  the  ninth  m  and  on  the  thirtieth n  day 
after  their  interment.  They  were  like- 
wife  appeafed  annually,  for  twelve  days 

h  In  this  general  fenfe  manes  is  ufed  by  Ovid,  Faili, 
V.  422. 

Inferias  tacitis  manibus  ilia  dabunt. 
See  above,  note  f. 

*  Cum  dixit  novies,  Manes  exite  patcrni.  Id.  ib.  443. 
k  Above,  p.  249.  note  ?. 

1  In  Plautus's  Aulularia,  Prolegom^  the  lar  fays, 
Huic  filia  una  eft  ;  ea  mihi  quotidie, 
Aut  ture,  aut  vino,  aut  aliqui,  femper  fupplicat. 

ra  The  ferias  denicales  were  obferved  on  the  ninth 
day,  and  therefore  called  novemdiales.  See  Jacobus 
Gutherius,  de  Jure  Manium,  1.  i.  c.  15.  in  torn.  12. 
of  Grsvius's  Rom.  Antiq.  and  the  authors  cited  in  the 
next  note. 

r  If  the  reader  wants  proofs  of  what  is  fo  well  known, 
he  may  confult  Bos's  Antiq.  of  Greece,  ch.  24.  p.  433. 
and  Potter's  Antiq.  v.  2.  p.  258. 

together, 


in  polifoed  Nations .  271 

together,  with  facrifices  and  expiations  °, 
attended  with  feafts  and  games p.  The 
feafons  appointed  for  thefe  folemnities 
were  fliled  holy -days  :  and  from  this  cir- 
cumftance  Cicero  concludes,  that  the 
ancients  reckoned  amongft  the  gods 
thofe  who  were  departed  out  of  the  pre- 
fent  life4.  In  honour  of  perfons  of 
rank,  their  friends  made  libations  of 
wine,  and  invoked  their  manes,  ^hile 
their  funeral-piles  were  burning r.  Chil 
dren  confecrated  their  parents  *  >  and 

°.  See  Potter's  Antiq.  v,  2.  p.  258,  260.     Kcnnett, 
vp.  360. 

P  Potter,  ib.  p.  247,  257.  Kennett,  p.  304,  360, 

*  Nee  verd   tarn  denicales,   quae  a  nece  appellatae 
flint,   quia  refidentur  mortui,  quam  caeterorum  ccelef- 
tium  quieti  dies,  feria  nominarentur,  nifi  majores  eos, 
qui  ex  hac  vita  migraffent,   in  deorum  numero  efle  vo- 
Juiffent.    Cicero  de  Legibus,   1,  2.  c.  22. 

'  Homer.  II.   XXXIII.   220.      ^fciiyl.   Chaephor. 
T,  86,   128. 

*  See  Feftus,  in  verb.  Feralia,  Gather,  de  Jure  Ma- 
mum,  1.  2.  c,  12.   and  Ovid.  Fafti,  1.  4.  v.  533-5^0. 

Eft  honor  et  tumulis ;   animas  placate  paternas, 
• Parva  petunt  manes. 

Here  manes  anfwers  to  animai  paternal* 

fwore 


•2J2,         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

fwore  by  their  afhes  ',  which  were  deemed 
facred.  Now,  an  oath  is  a  religious 
aft  j  and  fuppofes  the  deity,  to  whom  it 
appeals,  to  be  both  our  witnefs  and  our 
judge.  The  fore-mentioned  cuftoms 
were  of  great  antiquity  in  the  heathen 
world. 

:  And  it  was  upon  the  principles  of  the 
ancient  theology  that  the  Roman  people' 
deified  their  emperors".  Temples  and 
altars  were  erected  to  them  while  living  V 


'  Qfia  tibi  juro  per  matris  et  ofla  parentis. 

Propert.  1.  2.   Kleg.  13. 

Ego  fame  morientem  videbo,  per  cujus  cineres  juratus 
fum  ?  Seneca  pater,  1.  i.  Controv.  i.  Gather,  ubi 
iupra,  p.  1170.  —  Parents  alfo  confecrated  their  chil 
dren.  See  Cicero's  reafon  for  confecrating  his  daugh 
ter,  ap.  La&ant.  1.  i.  c.  15.  or  in  Cicero's  works, 
torn.  3.  p.  581.  ed.  Olivet.  Genevae.  Ad  opinion  era 
omnium  mortaliurn  cqnfecrabo. 

u  See  the  form  of  confecration,  in  Kennett,  p.  363. 
and  more  fully  in  Alexander  ab  Alexandro,  torn,  2, 
p. -446. 

w  Prsefenti  tibi-  maturos  largimur  honores, 

Jurandafque  tu,um  per  nomen   (al.  numen)  ponimus 

aras. •  Horat.  Ep.  II.  i. 

See  alfo  Virg.  Eel.  I.  6.  Horat.  1.  III.  Ode  III.  10. 
Ode  V.  2.  Sueton.  Vit.  Augufl.  c.  52. 

§y,  as 


in  polijked  Nations.  273 

as  well  as  after  their  deaths,  The  Romans 
transferred  the  diftinguifhing  attributes 
of  their  principal  deities  to  the  ftatues  of 
their  emperors.  To  put  Jupiter's  fulmen 
in  the  hand  of  the  llatue  of  Auguftus  was 
to  acknowledge  him  ruler  of  the  univerfe*. 
In  a  coin,  in  honour  of  Titus,  Jupiter, 
born  in  Crefer,  is  placed  amongft  the 
ftars2.  The  emperors  and  their  images 
were  objefts  of  equal  worfhip  with  the 
ancient  gods  of  heaven  ;  nay,  the  for 
mer  were  diftinguifhed  by  a  fuperior  re 
verence  ;  for  it  was  more  fafe  to  fwear 
falfely  by  the  genius  of  Jupiter  than  of  the 
king3. 

The  cuftom  of  deifying  great  princes 
was  no  innovation  of  the  Romans  ;  but 

*  Apelles  had  the  fame  meaning  when  he  drew  Alex 
ander's  picture  with  a  thunderbolt  in  his  hand.  Plu 
tarch.  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  360. 

y  Zw<;  K^Taya^.       2  Marfham's  Chron.  Can.  p.  248. 

a  Sic  eorum  (principum)  numen  invocant,  ad  imagi 
nes  fupplicant,  genium,  id  eft,  dsemonem  ejus,  impio- 
rant;  et  eft  eis  tutius  per  Jovis  genium  pejerare  quam 
regis.  Minuc.  Pel.  in  Oftavio,  c.  29.  See  alfo  Ter- 
tullian.Apol.  c*  27,  32. 

T  was 


274         Wcrjhip  of  human  Spirits 

was  an  old  fuperftition,  which  had  ta 
ken  fuch  deep  root  in  the  minds  of  men, 
that  even  the  chriftian  emperors  per 
mitted  themfelves  to  be  addreffed,  as  gods 
adored  by  the  nations,  to  whom  the  whole 
•world  preferred  their  public  and  private 
vows,  and  from  whom  the  mariner  ajked  a 
calm,  the  traveller  a  fafe  return,  and  the 
foldier  vidtory*.  And  fo  far  were  thefe  im 
perial  profelytes  from  being  offended 
with  fuch  impious  flattery,  that  they 
themfelves  arrogated,  the  titles  and  ho- 

*  Even  Theodofius  the  Great,  fo  celebrated  for  his 
piety,  was  addrefled  in  the  following  terms :  —  Jllud 
dicam  quodintellexiiTe  hominem  et  dixifle  fas  eft  talem 
efTe  debere  (imperatorem)  qui  a  gentibus  adoratur,  cui 
toto  orbe  terrarum  privata  vel  publica  vota  redduntur,  a 
quo  petit  navigaturus  ferenum,  peregrinaturus  reditum, 
pugnaturus  aufpicium.  Filefacus  de  Idololatria  Politi- 
ca,  p.  17.  '  Symmachus  (1.x.  ep.  21.  quae  ad  The- 
odofium  et  Arcadium  Auguftos)  ufes  the  following  lan 
guage  :  —  Praecipua  quidem  beneficia  numinis  veftri  po- 
pulus  Romanus  expedlat,  divi  imperatores.  Sed  ea 
quaii  debita  repetit,  quas  aeternitas  veftra  fponte  pro- 
mifit. 

nours 


in  polijloed  Nations. 
nours  of  divinity6.  Theodofius,  indeed, 
admoniihed  his  fubjefts  to  referve  for 
the  fupreme  God  the  homage  which  ex 
ceeded  the  rank  and  dignity  of  mend :  a 
very  necefiary  admonition,  as  the  hea 
then  emperors  had  made  no  fuch  diftinc- 
tion,  but  affumed  the  moft  facred  titles, 
as  well  as  received  the  rnoft  folemn  wor- 
fliip.  Domitian,  when  he  dictated  the 
form  of  a  letter  to  be  ufed  by  his  procu 
rators,  began  it  thus  :  Our  LORD  and 
GOD  thus  commands  us0.  Thefe  titles  are 

c  Sed  imperatores  Chriftianos  vel  divinitatis  vel  numi- 
nis  appelhitionem  fibi  adrogafTe  quis  ferat?  Noftram 
divinitatem  dixere  imperatores  Theodofius  et  Valenti- 
nianus,  1.  3.  Cod.  de  Summ.  Trinit.  Noftrum  numen 
was  ufed  by  Honorius  and  Theodoiius,  1.  viii.  &  1.  xi. 
Cod.  de  Sacrofanftis  Ecclef.  —  Theodofius  fuum  numen 
vocat.  Cod.  Theodof.  1.  xi.  tit.  i.  1.  xxxiii.— Et  mira- 
mur  dum  haec  legimus  in  Novella  Anthemii,  A.  tit.  I. 
—  Julia  quaedampreces  noftris  fundat  altaribus*  File- 
lacus,  p.  9,  10. 

11  Excedens  cultura  hominum  dignitatem  fupremo  nu- 
mini  refervetur.  Theodofius,  in  Theodof.  Cod.  L. 
tit.  iv. 

e  Cum  procuratorum  fuorum  nomine  formalem  didla- 
ret  epiftolam,  fie  ccepit :  Dcmivus  et  dzus  nofter  fie  fieri 
julet.  Sueton.  Vit.  Domitian.  c.  13. 

T  2  the 


276         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

the  very  fame  with  thofe  by  which  the 
Gentiles  defcribed  their  fupreme  Jupiterf« 

It  is  needlefs  to' produce  any  farther  e- 
vidence  of  the  worfhip  of  mortal  gods 
amongft  the  Romans.  It  has  now  been 
proved,  by  an  induflion  of  particulars, 
that  the  fame  worfhip  was  eftablifhed  in 
all  the  nations  polifhed  by  learning,  and 
alfo  in  the  far  greater  part  of  thofe  na 
tions  ufually  ftiled  barbarous.  The  dif- 
tinft  proofs  of  this  point,  collefted  from 
all  quarters  of  the  globe,  do  mutually 
receive  and  refle<5l  light  upon  one  ano 
ther. 

It  deferves  particular  notice,  that  the 
teftimonies,  produced  in  the  foregoing 
fheets,  not  only  eftablifh  the  fa6t,  that 
dead  men  and  women  were  worfhipped 
in  the  heathen  nations,  but  do  farther 
prove,  that  many  of  thefe  human  perfo-^ 
nages  were  worfhipped  in  all  the  civilized 
nations  of  the  earth,  if  not  in  many  others, 

f  Compare  the  language  of  the  Atlantians,    cited 
above,  p.  243,  note  v. 

as 


in  polijhed  Nations.  277 

as  their  greateft  gods,  and  with  the  moft 
facred  and  auguft  ceremonies5. 

It  is  ftill  more  remarkable,  that  feveral 
of  the  ancient  writers  cited  above,  though 
they  could  not  be  ignorant  that  the  hea 
thens  regarded  the  elements  and  heavenly 
bodies  as  real  divinities,  do  nevertheless 
affirm,  that  all,  .or  almoft  all,  their  gods 
had  once  belonged  to  the  human  race,6 
Thefe  writers  cannot  be  {peaking  of  fome 
obfcure  tribes  of  Barbarians,  who  are 
faid  to  worfhip  only  the  lights  of  hea 
ven  ;  but  manifeftly  refer  to  the  gods 
of  the  moft  celebrated  nations,  which 
had  propagated  their  religious  creed  and 
ceremonies  over  the  largeft  part  of  the 
then  known  world.  And  the  language 
in  queftion  is  to  be  farther  limi- 

8  To  the  teflimonies  already  cited  we  may  add  tlie  fal 
lowing  :  —  Quos  augufte  omnes  ian&eque  venerantur. 
Cotta ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c,  z\ .  —  Cum  vero  e£ 
mares  et  foeminas  compiures  ex  Kominibus  in  deorun^ 
numero  efTe  videamus,  et  eorum  in  urb.ibus  atque  agris 
auguftiflima  delubra  veneremur,  &c.  Cicero  ap.  LadaBt, 
J.  i.  c.  15.  p. 67, 

h  See  above,  p.  223,  224,  255,  257,  265. 

T  3  ted 


278          Worfoip  vf  human  Spirits 

ted  to  the  objefts  of  the  popular  and  c£- 
tablifhed  worfhip  in  thefe  nations.  Un 
der  thefe  limitations,  the  propofi- 
tion  holds  true  in  general,  and  with 
comparatively  few  exceptions,  that  all 
the  heathen  gods  had  been  men.  The 
witnefles  produced  were  competent  jud 
ges  of  the  faft  they  atteft ;  and,  even 
fuppofing  them  to  be  miftaken  in  their 
opinion,  yet  what  a  late  writer*  affirms 
cannot  be  true,  that  all  the  ^orld  knewy 
that  the  heathen  gods  had  never  been  men.  The 
Heathens  did  certainly  believe  the  con 
trary  ;  but  our  author  was  totally  unac 
quainted  with  their  fentiments  on  this 
fubjefl. 


Fell,  p.  uoa 


CHAP, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       279 


CHAP.     III. 

Containing  GENERAL  proofs  of  the 
worjhip  of  human  fpirits  in  the 
ancient  heathen  world. 

/"Tp  H  E  proofs  of  this  fpecies  of  idola 
try,  adduced  in  the  two  preceding 
chapters,  chiefly  refpeft  particular  na 
tions  ;  but  thofe  which  will  be  farther 
offered  are  of  a  more  general  nature, 
and  almoft  equally  refpeft  the  far  greater 
part  of  the  ancient  world.  They  will  be 
drawn  from  two  fources :  from  the  tefti- 
monies  of  the  ancients,  and  from  certain 
uncontroverted  fafts. 

SECT.     I. 

General  proofs  of  the  wor/hip  of  human  fpi~ 
rits  amongst  the  Heathens ,  drawn  from 
the  TESTIMONIES  of  the  ancients. 

T  WILL  here  diilinclly  examine  the  tef- 

timonies  of  the  Heathens  themfelves, 

T  4  whether 


2  So         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

whether  poets,  philofophers,  or  hifto- 
rians  •>  and  afterwards  thofe  of  the  chrif- 
tian  Fathers. 

I.  The  heathen  POETS,  with  what 
ever  lofty  titles  they  dignify  the  objefts 
of  the  eftablifhed  worftiip,  do  neverthe- 
lefs  record  their  births,  parentage,  and 
kindred ;  reprefent  them  as  {landing  to 
one  another  in  the  fame  relations,  of  fa 
thers  and  mothers,  brothers  and  lifters, 
which  fubfift  among  mankind  i  afcribe 
to  them  the  fame  diftinftion  of  fexes,  and 
the  fame  appetites  and  paffions,  which 
belong  to  human  nature,  as  well  as  all 
thofe  vices  which  moft  difgrace  it.  They 
attribute  to  them  the  external  forms  of 
men  and  women ;  defcribe  their  com 
plexion,  apparel,  and  ornaments ;  and 
relate  their  wars*  their  wounds,  their 
chains,  their  ages,  their  lamentations, 
and  their  deaths,  Thefe  feveral  particu 
lars  are  fo  well  known,  that  it  cannot  be 
necefiary  to  fupport  them  by  pafTages 
from  the  poets ;  efpecially  as  they  are 
fufficiently  warranted  by  the  language 

which 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  281 
which  Cicero  has  put  into  the  mouths 
of  vclleius  and  Balbus,  cited  below1. 
E'v.»aily  needlefs  would  it  be  to  fhew, 
eitiier  that  the  preceding  defcriptions 
of  the  gods  are  not  applicable  to  the  ele 
ment  s  and  heavenly  bodies ;  or  that,  on 
the  other  hand,  they  do  entirely  corref- 
pond  to  the  nature  and  condition  of  the 
human  racek.  As  to  Jupiter,  the  fu- 

preme 

1  Poetae, —  qui  et  ira  inflammatos,  etlibidine  furen- 
tes,  induxerunt  deos ;  feceruntque,  ut  eorum  bella, 
praelia,  pugnas,  vulnera,  videremus ;  odia,  praeterea, 
diffidia,  difcordias,  ortus,  interitus,  querelas,  lamen- 
tationes,  effufas  in  omni  intemperantia  libidines,  adul- 
teria,  vincula,  cum  humano  genereconcubitus,  morta- 
lefque  ex  immortalibus  procreates.  De  Nat.  Deor.  1.  i . 
c.  16.  —  Formae  nobis  deorum,  et  setates,  et  veftitus 
ornatufque  notifunt:  genera,  praeterea,  conjugia,  cog- 
jiationes,  omniaque  traducta  ad  fimilitudinem  imbecilli- 
tatis  humanae.  L.  2.  c.  28.  —  The  argument  from  the 
human  form  of  the  gods  will  be  confidered  when  we 
fpeakof  their  images. 

k  See  the  preceding  note  a.  —  As  to  Homer  In  par 
ticular,  Cicero  (Tufcul.  Difput.  1.  i.  c.  26.)  fays,  he 
afcribed  to  the  gods  the  qualities  peculiar  to  men,  —  hu- 
mana  ad  deos  transferebat :  which  anfwers  to  Plutarch's 
,  and  to  another  expreflion,  awo  t«* 
when  he  is  defcribing 
thofe 


282         Worfhlp  of  human  Spirits 

preme  god  of  the  poetical  theology,  he 
differed  from  others  only  as  a  father 
from  his  children,  or  as  a  fovereign  from 
fubje£ls  of  the  fame  nature1. 

We 

thofe  who  taught,  that  the  gods  had  been  men.  If*  & 
Ofir.  p.  366  A.  p.  359  E. 

1  To  what  has  been  obferved  concerning  Homer's  Ju 
piter  inDiffert.  on  Mir.  p.  176, 177 1  and  above,  p.  242, 
243.  I  muft  add,  that,  though  the  poet  compliments 
him  with  the  title  of  the  father  of  gads  and  men*  yet, 
agreeably  to  the  antient  theogonies,  he  calls  Oceanus 
the  parent  of  tbt  gods ;  flxeotroit  rs  Stut  ywserw,  xau  fjwngci 
TjjSy*.  11.14.  v,  201.  See  Dr..  Clarke's  note,  and 
Virg.  Georg.  iv.  382.  —According  to  Hefiod,  (Theo- 
gon.  v.  453,  490.)  Jupiter  was  the  youngeft  fon  of 
Rhea  and  Saturn.  The  fame  poet  reprefents  him  as 
addrefling  the  gods,  not  as  his  own  offspring,  but  as 
the  offspring  of  earth  and  heaven*  KexXyrs  pw,  r«wj?  re 
xou  Ov£avt3  otyXaoe,  rtwa..  Y.443.  —  In  Virgil,  Jupiter 
is  fublimely  defcribed  as  fummi  regnator  Olympi,  ^£n. 
vii.  558,  as  divum  pater,  and  homlnum  divumque 
seternapoteftas,  x.  2,  17.  It  is  faid  of  him,  torquet 
iidera  mundi,  ix.  93  ;  coelum  ac  terras  numine  torquet, 
iv.  296.  Neverthelefs,  according  to  this  poet,  Jupk 
ter  was  nurfed  upon  mount  Ida  in  Crete,  Creta  Jovis 
magni,  iii-  IO4*  an(^  was  the  fon  of  Berecynthia,  or 
Cybele,  the  mother  of  the  gods :  Ipfa  deum  fertur  ge- 
netrix.  O  genetrix,  quo  fata  vocas,  ix.  82,  83,  93^ 
94.  Alma  parens  Idsea  deum,  x.  25? »  Cybele 

herfelf 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      283 

We  are  toldm,  indeed,  that  it  hath  been 
affirmed,  by  very  great  names,  that  jiffiion 
and  LTING  are  infcp arable  from  poetry  : 
a  pofition,  I  imagine,  which  no  one  can 
ferioufly  undertake  to  defend.  Never- 
thelefs,  as  many,  both  of  the  ancient  and 
modern  advocates  of  the  heathen  religion, 
when  at  a  lofs  to  fupport  it's  credit,  have 
pretended  that  it  was  greatly  corrupted  by 
the  fiftions  of  the  poets,  I  fhall  offer  a 

herfelf  alfo  was  a  Cretan  :  Hinc  mater  cultrix  Cybele, 
iii.  ill.  According  to  Horace,  that  very  Jupi 

ter,  qui  mare  et  terras  variifque  mundum  temperat  ho- 
ris,  was  ortus  Saturno.  Lib.  i.  Ode  12.  v.  15,  50. 
•  I  (hall  only  take  notice  of  .one  poet  more*  viz. 

Ovid,  who  joins  Jupiter  and  Auguflus  together  :  Jupi 
ter  arces  temperat  setherias ;  terra  fub  Augufto.  Pater 
eft  et  re&or  uterque.  Metamorph.  1. 15.  v.  859.  The 
term  pater  was  not  appropriated  to  Jupiter,  and  often 
denotes  only  a  ruler.  According  to  Ovid,  (Metamorph. 
1,  xi.  v.  221.)  Jupiter  was  divinely  warned  againft  in 
dulging  his  paffion  for  Thetis,  left  he  mould  have  a  fon 
greater  than  himfelf,  who  would  dethrone  him  as  he 

had  dethroned  his  father  Saturn Thus  are  the 

fublimeft  defcfiptions  of  the  Jupiter  of  the  popular  and 
civil  theology  given  us  by  the  poets,  intermingled  with 
the  plain  characters  of  his  humanity. 
m  Fell,  Introduction,  p,  xiv. 

few 


284          Worjblp  of  human  Spirt  fs 

few  general  obfervations  upon  this  fub- 
je<5t,  though  with  a  peculiar  view  to  the 
queftion  now  before  us. 

i.  Poetry  was,  perhaps,  both  the 
moft  ancient  and  the  moft  admired  fpe- 
cics  of  compofition.  The  laws  of  the 
Turdetani,  faid  to  be  the  oldeft  inhabi 
tants  of  Spain,  were  written  in  verfe, 
fix  thoufand  years,  as  they  affirmed,  be 
fore  the  age  of  Strabo0.  The  firft  infti- 
tutes  of  religion  likewife  were  probably 
written  in  the  fame  manner.  And  the 
verfes,  in  both  cafes,  might  be  defigned 
merely  to  affift  the  memory  in  learning 
and  retaining  the  rules  eftablifhed  for  the 
direftion  of  their  political  and  religious 
conduft,  or  to  recommend  the  fubjefts  by 
the  charms  of  poetry .  To  anfwer  thefe  ends> 
there  was  no  more  reafon  to  have  re- 
courfe  to  fi6lion  with  refpe6l  to  one  of 
thefe  fubjefts  than  the  other.  Were  the 
many  interefting  relations,  concerning 
the  Roman  gods  and  goddefles,  contained 

0  Strabo,  1.  3.  p.  204, 

in 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      285 

in  Ovid's  Faftiy  ever  deemed  fufpicious, 
merely  becaufe  that  moft  learned  and 
ufeful  of  all  his  works  was  not  written  in 
profe  ? 

2.  It  was  not  the  province  of  the  poets, 
as  fitch,  to  affign  to  any  man  a  place  in 
heaven,  and  to  ereft  temples  and  altars 
in  his  honour i  Romulus,  for  example, 
was  not  indebted  for  his  deification  to 
Virgil,  or  Horace,  or  Ennius,  or  any 
more  early  poet,  but  to  the  fenate  and 
people  of  Rome.  Nor  was  the  cafe  diffe 
rent  as  to  the  other  gods  taken  from  a- 
mongft  men  :  for  it  was  to  the  legifla- 
ture,  in  conjunftion  with  the  priefthood% 
that  they  were  indebted  for  their  fuppo- 
fed  advancement  to  heaven,  and  for  the 
worfhip  paid  them  upon  the  earth. 

There  were  certain  rites,  which,  moft  probably, 
were  performed  by  the  prieib,  by  which  human  foul* 
were  converted  into  gods.  See  Servius,  cited  above, 
p.  260,  note  f.  —  Arnobius,  p  87,  "fays,  Etruria  libris 
in  Acheronticis  pollicetur,  certorum  animalium  fangui- 
ne  numinibus  certis  dato,  divinas  animas  fieri,  et  ab 
legibusmortalitatis  educi. 

3- 


286         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

3.  The  proper  province  of  the  poets, 
under  their  peculiar  character,  was  to  ce 
lebrate  the  praifes  of  the  gods*     If,  in 
the  difcharge  of  this  office,  they  embel- 
lifhed  the  fubjeft   with  fome  colouring 
of  their  own,    and  exceeded  the  truth  $ 
(on  which  fide   their  temptation  lay;) 
what  is  the  mofl  natural  inference  from 
hence  ?     Surely  not  that  they  degraded 
their  gods  into  men,  but  that  they  exalt 
ed  men  into  gods p. 

4.  Accordingly,  thofe  Heathens,  who 
were  rnoft  offended  with  the  poets,  do 
not  charge  them  with  inventing  the  doc 
trine  of  the  humanity  of  the  gods.    Dio- 
dorus  Siculus,  at  the  very  time  that  he 
reproaches   Homer,    Hefiod,    and    Or 
pheus,  with  framing  very  monftrous  fa- 

P  Quibus  igitur  credemus,  fi  fidem  laudantibus  non 
Iiabemus .?  Laftant*  1.  I.  0.9.  p.  38.  —  Illi  (fc.  po 
etse)  de  hominibus  loquebantur :  fed  ut  eos  ornarent* 
quorum  memoriam  laudibus  celebrabant,  deos  efle dixe- 
runt,  Id.  1.  I.  c.  xi.  p.  46*  See  more  to  the  fame 
purpofe,  p.  47,  48,  &c.  c.  19.  p.  81,  82.  &  in  torn.  2. 
c.  ii,  12,  p.  8,  9.  cd.  Dufrefnoy. 

bles 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      287 

bles  concerning  them%  reprefents  the 
moft  ancient  theologers  as  afferting  the 
exiftence  of  gods  that  were  of  earthly  o- 
riginr. 

5.  The  reafon  why  Diodorus,  Socra 
tes,  Plato,  and  others,  reprefent  the  ab- 
furd  and  immoral  ftories  concerning  the 
gods  as  mere  inventions  of  the  poets,  is 
not  any  pofitive  evidence  of  the  faft,  but 
a  defire  of  preferving  the  credit  of  reli 
gion  and  the  morals  of  the  people,  which 
were  in  danger  of  being  deftroyed  by  the 
profligate  charafters  and  examples  of  the 
objects  of  their  worfhip*. 

6.  It  is  indeed  abfurd,  at  leaft  when 
we  are  fpeaking  of  very  ancient  times,  to 
oppofe    the    theology  of    the  poets  to 
that  of  the   philofophers,  divines,  ma- 
giftrates,  and  priefts  :  for  they  all  made 
one  body  together.     In  Britain  and  Gaul 

S  Tf£aT#&rE£#?  pvQxi;  WE£t  vcwj-  irnrkcLxa-crui-  Diodor, 
Sic.  Fragm.  torn.  2.  p.  633.  ed,  WelTeling. 

r  The  paflage  will  be  cited  below,  under  the  third 
article,  where  the  hiilorians  are  fpoken  of. 

8  See  Auguft  Civ.  Dei,  1.4.  c.  27.  1.6.  c.  5.  Pla- 
ton.  oper.  p.  429,  430.  ed.  Lugd.  p.  1590. 

thev 


s88         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

they  were  included  in  the  common  dend* 
mination  of  Druids1.  This  junftion 
ofthebardsj  withthofe  who  framed,  ef- 
tablifhed,  and  adminiftered,  the  public 
religion,  is  a  demonftration  that  the 
theology  of  both  muft  be  the  fame,  and 
fupported  by  the  authority  of  the  ftate. 
Indeed,  in  fuch  high  reputation  were 
the  ancient  poets,  that  Plutarch  appeals 
to  their  authority  in  the  fame  manner  as 
he  does  to  that  of  the  philofophers u  -,  and 
joins  them  with  the  oldeft  theologersw. 
Socrates  %  Plato7,  and  others2,  fpeak 
of  them  as  the  divinely  infpired  prophets 
of  the  gods.  The  fame  idea  of  them  was, 
it  is  probable,  generally  entertained  in 

r  Strabo  indeed  diflinguifhes  the  Bards  from  the  Dru 
ids,  1.  4.  p.  302,  but  the  former  were  probably  an  or 
der  of  the  latter*  See  the  writers  upon  the  Druids. 

"Plutarch.  Amatorius,  p.  770.  A.B. 

w  O»  (Atv  fftpofya,  naXocuH  ^EoXoyoi  xa»  wotjjrai.  De  Orac* 
Defeft.  p.  436.  D. 

x  Platon.  Apol.  Socrat.  p.  360.  G. 

r  lo,  p.  145. 

z  Dio  Chryfoftom,  Orat.  36.  p.  447.  Lutetian,  1604* 
Qi  $eto»  9ro»73T«»  ftB$cm$  sx  Mxcruv,  x.  r«  A. 

the 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      289 

the  early  ages  of  the  world  ;  and  confe- 
quently  their  writings  would  be  regarded 
as  the  canonical  fyftem  of  religion.  A 
fubverfion  of  this  ancient  fyftem,  after  it 
had  taken  ftrong  hold  of  the  paffions  and 
prejudices  of  mankind,  the  poets  of  lat 
ter  ages  were  not  able  to  effeft,  nor  even 
likely  to  attempt a. 

7.  As  to  thofe  poets  in  particular, 
whofe  writings  have  been  preferved  from 
the  injuries  of  time,  it  is  as  unreafona- 
ble  to  accufe  them  as  their  predeceffors 
of  inventing  or  corrupting  the  civil  the 
ology.  Herodotus  thought  that  Hefiod 

and  Homer  were  the  perfons  who  framed 

i 

a  Sed  poetarum,  inquiunt,  figmenta  funt  haec  omnia, 
et  ad  voluptatem  compofitse  lufiones.  Non  eft  quidem 
credibile  homines  minus  brutos  et  vetuftatis  remotiffi- 
mse  veftigatores,  aut  non  eas  inferuifle  fuis  carminibus 
Fabulas,  quae  in  notionibus  hominum  fuperefTent,  atque 
in  auribus  collocatae ;  aut  ipfos  fibi  tantum  licentiofi 
voluifle  juris  adfcifcere,  ut  confingerent  per  ftultitiam  res 
eas,  quae  nee  ab  infania  procul  effent  remotaE;,  et  quse 
illis  ab  diis  metum,  et  periculum  poflent  ab  hominibus, 
comparare.  Arnob.  adv.  Gent.  p.  148,  149.  Lugd. 
Bat.  1651. 

U  a  theogony 


290  Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 
a  theogony  for  the  (ufe  of  the)  Greeks** 
But  it  will  not  follow  from  hence  that  it 
was  their  invention.  It  is  much  more 
probable,  that  they  framed  it  upon  the 
principles  of  the  theology  of  Egypt  and 
Phoenicia,  whofe  gods  were  introduced 
into  Greece  by  Cecrops  and  others,  long 
before  the  time  of  thefe  poets  c.  For  any 
thing  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  the 
theogonies  of  Hefiod  and  Homer  may 
,  be  as  faithful  records  of  ancient  tradi 
tions  as  thofe  of  Sanchoniathon,  or  Be- 
rofus,  or  any  other  profe  writer.  With 


*  O*  srot»jcravTE?  Saoyovia?  EXA»j<Tt.  Herodot.  1.2.  €.53. 
Did  the  hiitorian  at  this  inftant  forget  that  Orpheus  and 
Mufaeus  were  older  theogonifts  than  Hefiod  and  Homer  ? 
or  did  he  rejeft  the  works  afcribed  to  them  as  fpurious  ? 

cEpiphanius,  Haeres.  1.  I.  §.7.  See  the  DiiTerta- 
tion  de  vita,  &c.  Hefiodi,  prefixed  to  Robinfon's  ed. 
p.  xv.  It  may  be  obferved,  that,  whether  the  public 
religion  of  Greece  was  formed  upon  the  poems  of  Ho 
mer  and  Hefiod,  or  (which  is  more  probable)  whether 
their  poems  were  formed  into  a  correfpondence  to  the 
public  religion,  they  are,  on  either  fuppofition,  to  be 
confidered  as  authenticyfoWiar^j-  whereby  we  are  to  regu- 
lateour  judgementconcerning  it.  Would  Homer's  hymns 
have  been  fung  in  the  public  feftivals  of  the  gods,  if 
his  theology  had  not  correfponded  to  that  of  the  ftate  ? 

regard 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      291 

regard  to  epic  and  dramatic  poets,  they 
cannot,  without  great  impropriety,  de 
viate  from  the  cuftoms  of  the  ages   of 
which  they  write ;    the    merit  of  their 
works  confuting  very  much  in  their  being 
accurate  reprefentations  of  life  and  man 
ners  f.     The  propriety  of  the  fpeeches, 
which  they  frame  for  the  perfons  intro 
duced  into  their   compofitions,  is  to  be 
wholly  determined  by  their   agreement 
with  the  known  characters  and  princi 
ples  of  the  fpeakers.  To  make  the  fpeak- 
ers    contradict   the    commonly-received 
fentiments   concerning  the  gods  would 
be  more  than  an  impropriety  or  an  ab- 
furdity :  it  would  be  deemed  profanenefs, 
and  fhock  the  prejudices  of  mankind. 
Whenever  therefore  the  poets,  of  whom 
we  are   now   fpeaking,    ufe  the  liberty 
of  embellifhment,    their    very    fi6lions 
muft    be   conformable    to  the  received 
ftandard  of  the  public  religion.     Who, 
then,  can  doubt  whether  Homer's  fables 

d  Diflert.  on  Mir.  p.  188,  189. 

U  2  concerning 


292         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

concerning  the  heathen  gods  were  foun* 
ded  in  popular  legends  and  ancient  tra 
ditions  ?     As  to  Virgil,  he  almoft  every 
where  difcovers  the   moft  exa6t  know 
ledge  of  antiquity  %  and  more  efpecially 
in  defcribing  the  religious  opinions  and 
cuftoms  of  it.     Nor  are  more  authentic 
monuments  of  them  any  where  to   be 
found  than  in  the  writings  of  the  two 
great  poets  of  Greece  and  Rome. 

8.  Laftly,  the  account,  given  of  the 
heathen  gods  by  the  poets,  did,  in  fa£t, 
conftitute  both  the  popular  and  civil 
theology,  or  the  religion  received  by  the 
.people  and  eftabiifhed  by  the  laws.  We 
have  already  feen,  that  there  is  every 
reafon  to  fuppofe  this  to  have  been  the 
cafe ;  and  that  reafoning  is  confirmed  by 
the  teftimony  of  the  moft  credible  wri 
ters. 

The  people,  we  are  informed,  were 
more  difpofed  to  adopt  the  doftrine  of  the 

e  Muitae  antiquitatis  homlnem  fine  often tationis  odio 
peritam.    Aul.  Gellius,  1.  v.  c.  12. 

poets 


'in  the  ancient  beatlen  World.      293 

poets  than  any  phyfical  interpretations', 
and  regarded  their  writings  as  the  rule 
both  of  their  faith  and  worfhip8.  Evea 
the  moft  abfurd  fables,  fuch  as  Ccelus's 
being  caftrated  by  his  children,  Saturn's 
devouring  his,  and  Jupiter's  imprilbning 
his  father,  were  underftood  literally,  and 
received  by  the  people  with  implicit; 
faith,  in  Greece  as  well  as  other  coun 
tries  h. 

U  3  The 

f  Varro  dicit,  de  generationibus  deorum^  magis  ad 
poetas  quam  adjphyficos  fuifle  populos  inclinatos,  Ap, 
Auguft,  Civ.  Dei,  1.4.  c,  32.  —  Quod  de  diis  imnior^ 
talibus  philofophi  difputant  ferre  non  poflunt:  quod 
vero  poetae  canunt,  et  hiftriones  agunta  —  iihenter  ail- 
diunt.  Auguft.  de  Civ.  Dei,  1.  6.  c.  5* 

«  Dio  Chryfoftom,  p.  447,  having  afferted  the  infpU 
yation  of  the  moft  ancient  poets.,  fays,  that  by  them 
men  were  perfuaded  to  ereft  altars  to  Jupiter  under  the 
character  of  king.  0*5  «rw$of«»o*  Ot  at^^iroi  Aw? 


h  Dionyfius  Halicarnaflenfis,  Antiq.  Rom.  L  2, 
C.  18,  19,  20.  —  Cicero  has  put  the  following  language 
into  the  mouth  of  Balbus.  Vetus  hasc  opinio  Grecians. 
opplevit,  fcilicet  exfe&um  Cceluni  a  filio  Saturno., 
vinftum  autem  Saturnum  ipfum  a  filio  Jove.  Baibus 
9p.  Cicer.  de  Nat,  Deor,  1.  2.  c.  24.  After  ipeakiag 

of 


294         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

The  worfhip  appointed  by  the  laws 
was  conformable  to  the  poetic  theology, 
and  founded  upon  it.  The  games  infti- 
tuted,  and  the  plays  acted,  by  the  au 
thority  of  the  magiftrate,  in  honour 
of  the  gods,  and  with  the  exprefs  defign 
of  rendering  them  propitious,  reprefent- 
ed  or  imitated  all  thofe  flagitious  actions 
which  were  afcribed  to  them  by  the  po 
ets1,  and  which  reflect  moft  difhonour 
on  human  nature.  Nay,  it  was  a  dan 
gerous  herefy  to  reject  the  fabulous  or 
poetical  theologyk.  Socrates  mentions  his 
rejection  of  the  grofleft  fables  as  the 
ground  of  the  accufation  againft  him1, 
which  coft  him  his  life.  Now,  from 
this  agreement  of  the  popular  and  civil 
theology  with  the  poetical,  we  may  infer, 

of  the  fables  of  the  poets  at  large,  Balbus  fays,  Haec  et 
dicuntur  et  creduntur  ftultifllme.    Ib.  c.  28. 

1  This  fubjeft  is  handled  to  advantage  by  Auftin,  de 
Civ.  Dei,  1.  2.  c.  25,  26,  27.  1.  4.  c.  26.  1.  6,  c.  5. 
and  by  Arnobius,  1.  7.  p.  238.  See  alfo  1.4.  p. 


Luciani  Philopfeud.  torn.  2.  p.  328. 

Platon.  Euthyphro,  torn.  I.  p.  6.  ed*  Serrani. 

that 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      295 

that  the  reprefentation,  made  by  the  po 
ets  of  the  human  origin  of  the  gods,  is  a 
proof  that  the  objefls  of  the  eftablifhed 
worfhip  in  the  gentile  nations  had  once 
been  men. 

The  painters  and  fculptors  convey  to  us 
the  fame  idea  of  the  heathen  deities  as  the 
poets :  for  they  reprefent  them  under  hu 
man  figures,  both  male  and  female.  The 
image  even  of  the  catamite,  Ganymede, 
and  the  effigy  of  the  eagle  which  carried 
him  up  to  heaven,  were  placed  in  the 
public  temples  under  the  fan<Slion  of 
the  magiftracy  and  priefthood,  and 
propofed  to  the  people  as  objects  of  their 
adoration  equally  with  Jupiter  himfelf m. 
Is  there  a  more  abfurd  and  immoral  fable 
in  the  poets  than  the  rape  of  Ganymede^ 
which  neverthelefs  we  find  made  a  part 

18  Ita  enim  deorum  fimulacra  confingunt,  ut  ex  ipfa 
diverfitate  fexus  appareat  vera  efTe  qu<e  dicunt  poetae. 
Nam  quod  aliud  argumentum  habet  imago  catamiti,  et 
effigies  aquilae,  cum  ante  pedes  Jovis  ponuntur  in  tem- 
plis,  et  cum  ipfo  pariter  adorantur,  nifi  ut  nefandi  fce- 
leris  et  ftupri  memoria  maneat  in  seternum  ?  La&ant. 
1.  I.  c.  II.  p.  48.  ed,  Dufrefnoy. 

U  4  of 


596         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

of  the  public  religion  ?  Jvloft  unreafona- 
ble,  therefore,  is  it  to  treat  this  or  any  o- 
ther  fable  as  a  fiction  of  the  poets,  mere 
ly  on  account  of  it's  abfurdity  and  im 
morality.  The  gods  of  the  poets  an4 
thofe  of  the  magiftrates  were  the  fame" ; 
and  therefore,  as  the  former  were  of  hu 
man  origin,  the  latter  muft  be  fo  likewife. 

II.  The  PHILOSOPHERS  are  to  be 
confidered  in  two  views  :  as  perfons  who 
had  opinions  of  their  own  concerning 
the  gods  ;  and  as  perfons  capable  of  tef- 
tifying  what  the  gods  publicly  worfhip- 
ped  really  were. 

As  to  their  own  opinions  concerning 
Deity,  they  were  infinitely  various,. 
Some  would  not  allow  there  were  any 
gods  at  all ;  others  not  only  afTerted  the 
exiftence,  but  had  formed  many  juft  and 
elevated  conceptions,  of  the  divine  being  j 

n  Hence  that  obfervation  concerning  Zeno,  that  his 
phyfical  interpretation  of  Hefiod's  theogony  overturned 
the  eftablifhed  notions  of  the  gods.  Tollit  ontnino  pro:- 
teptas  injttafque  cogmtiones  deorum.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor, 
1.  i.  c.  14. 

and 


m  the  ancient  heathen  World.  297 
and  were  offended  with  the  vicious  qua 
lities  afcribed  to  the  objefts  of  popular 
worfhip.  Many  would  neither  allow  the 
converfionof  human  fouls  into  demons, 
nor  the  exiftence  of  demons  of  a  higher 
origin;  while  feveral  contended  for  both. 
But  the  religious  creed  of  the  philofo- 
phers  cannot  be  the  proper  ftandard 
whereby  to  judge  of  the  civil  theology. 
The  former  was  for  the  moft  part  utterly 
fubverfive  of  the  latter.  For  this  reafon 
it  was  that  the  Differtation*  fpoke  of  the 
neceffity  of  ufmg  caution  in  reading  the 
philofophers,  and  declared,  in  terms, 
*c  that  we  had  there  no  concern  with 
*c  their  fpeculations."  The  queftion  agi 
tated  in  that  place  refpefted  only  the 
immediate  obj  efts  of  the  eftablifhed  wor- 
(hip  in  the  heathen  nations ;  and  there 
fore  could  have  no  relation  to  any  gods 
or  demons  held  only  by  the  philofphersp. 
Neverthelefs  a  late  writer  has  confounded 
thefe  very  different  deities  together. 

•  On  Mir.  p.  189,  190.          P  See  above,  p.  4-7. 

Some 


298         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Some  proofs  having  been  offered q  of  the 
humanity  of  the  Jupiter,  or  fupreme  de 
ity,  of  the  popular  and  civil  theology,  a 
known  parricide  and  ufurper  -,  the  gen 
tleman1',  after  citing  the  nobleftdefcrip- 
tion  of  Deity  given  us  by  Socrates  % 
adds,  Whether  this  be  a  proof  \  "  that  the 
"fupreme  Deity  of  the  Pagans  had  once  been 
ct  a  mortal  man"  we  leave  our  readers  to 
judge.  If  we  form  our  judgement  of  Mr. 
Fell  by  this  language,  we  muft  con 
clude,  that  he  did  not  know  the  diffe 
rence  between  the  Jupiter,  or  fupreme 
deity,  of  the  Pagans,  worfhipped  in  their 
temples.,  and  him  acknowledged  only  by 
the  philofophers ;  though  the  Heathens 
have  clearly  diftinguifhed  the  one  from 
the  other,  as  Seneca  has  done  in  the 

iDifiert.  p.  176,  177.  'Fell,  p.  104. 

9  Mr.  Fell,  p.  104,  very  improperly  refers  to  Xeno- 
phon  the  defcription  of  deity  given  by  Socrates,  though 
the  former  profefles  merely  to  relate  the  fentiments  of  the 
latter.  Memorabil.  1.  I.  c.  4.  §.  2.  1.4.  c.  3. 

paffage 


'in  tie  ancient  heathen  World.      299 

pafTage  cited  below*.  By  the  fame  rule 
of  judging,  our  author  was  even  ignorant 
that  Socrates  oppofed  (and  fuffered  death 
for  oppofing)  the  commonly-received  no 
tion  of  the  gods,  and  of  Jupiter  in  parti 
cular,  as  one  who  put  his  father  in  chains*; 
and  that  this  great  innovator  in  religion 
was  formally  charged  with  introducing 
new  gods*.  Mr.  Fell's  objection  proceeds 
on  the  ftrange  fuppofition,  that  the  the 
ology  of  Socrates  was  the  fame  with  the 
popular  and  civil.  Should  any  one  aflert 
that  the  eftablifhed  doftrineof  the  church 
of  England  is  trinitarian^  would  it  be  a  per 
tinent  obje6lion  againft  this  aflertion  to 
allege  that  Newton  and  Clarke  were  uni- 
tarians  ?  Equally  foreign  from  the  point 
is  the  method  taken  by  Mr.  Fell  to  dif- 
credit  the  truth  of  the  account  I  had  gi- 

1  Ne  hoc  quidem  crediderunt,  Jovem,  qualemincapi- 
tolio  et  in  cteteris  tsdibus  colimus,  mittere  manu  fulmina, 
fed  eundem  quern  nos  Jovem  intelligunt,  cuftodem  refto- 
remque  univerfi.  Senec.  Nat.  Quaeft.  1.  2.  €.45.  See 
alfo  Cicero de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  4. 

u  Platon.  Euthyphro,  p.  2.  ed.  Serrani. 

F  Jd.  ib.  p.  6. 

ven 


joo          Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

ven  of  the  gods  of  the  civil  theology, 
and  of  Jupiter  in  particular,  by  fhewing 
that  Socrates,  who  was  known  to  diflent 
from  that  theology,  acknowledged  a  dei 
ty  that  had  never  been  a  man.  Scarce 
could  the  gentleman  have  Ihot  wider 
of  the  mark,  had  he  taken  pains  to  mifs 
it. 

But,  though  the  prefent  queftion  does 
not  properly  concern  the  gods  and  de 
mons  of  the  philofophers,  yet  it  may  be 
fitly  determined  by  their  teftimony  con 
cerning  the  objects  of  national  worfhip. 
They  were  certainly  competent  judges, 
whether  the  heathen  nations  worfhipped 
fuch  gods  as  had  been  men :  for  they  had 
the  beft  means  of  information  concern- 
ing  the  religion  of  the  refpeftive  ages 
and  countries  in  which  they  lived,  and 
they  had  ftudied  the  fubjed  with  partial-* 
lar  attention. 

Many  pofitive  teftimonies  of  thephilo* 
fophers  to  the  public  worfhip  of  human 
fpirits  were  referred  to  in  a  former  publi 
cation  s 


in  the  ancient  leathen  World, 

Cation*  5  and  feveral  were  cited  at  large \ 
particularly  that  of  Cicero7,  which  re- 
prefents  almoft  all  the  gods,  and  even 
the  greater  deities,  as  having  been  men. 
Thefe  teftimonies,  important  and  deci- 
five  as  they  are,  a  late  writer  has  pafled 
over  in  perfefi  lilence2^  which  is  the 
more  remarkable,  as,  according  to  the 
account  which  he  himfelf  has  given  of  the 

*  DifTert.  p.  191-193.     See  alfo  p.  182,  183, 

TT   P.   192. 

z  Nay,  the  gentleman's  language  is  manifestly  calcu 
lated  (though  it  might  not  be  defigned)  to  miflead  iiis 
readers  into  an  opinion,  that  no  fuch  teflimonies  had 
been  produced.  Speaking  of  the  philosophers,  he  fays, 
Introduction,  p.  xiv.  *c  It  feems  unreafonable  to  EX- 
"  CLUDE  the  writings  and  opinions  of  the  moft  learned 
€<  aadjudifious  from  what  immediately  relates  to  their 
"  own  times  and  to  the  fentiments  of  thofe  amongll 
€(  whom  they  lived."  And  though  afterwards,  at 
fome  diftance,  he  adds,  in  general  terms,  that  <r  I  very 
*'  fretly  admitted  tbrir  information,  ivbetttwr  I  thought  it 
"  advantageous  to  tny  own  caufe ;"  his  readers  would 
never  from  hence  infer,  that  I  had  availed  myfelf  of  their 
information  in  the  particular  cafe,  in  which  his  lan 
guage  more  than  infmuates  it  had  been  excluded,  and  in 
which,  he  pretends,  the  philofophers  were  on  his  iide 
of  the  queftion. 

philofophers, 


302         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

philofophers,  they  were  the  moft  proper 
judges3  of  the  faft  which  they  atteft. 

To  the  teftimonies  of  the  philofophers 
to  the  general  worfhip  of  human  fpirits, 
formerly  produced,  others  have  been  oc- 
cafionally  added  in  the  two  preceding 
chapters5.  I  will  not  repeat  them  in  this 
place,  however  pertinent,  but  only  con 
firm  them  by  a  few  more  paflages  of  the 
fame  import. 

Callifthenes,  when  he  was  oppofing 
the  deification  of  Alexander  while  living, 
affirms  cc  that  this  favour  was  always 
c<  granted  to  great  men  by  pofterityc  ". 
Balbus  alfo  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  general  cujlom 
to  exalt  to  heaven  fuch  excellent  men  as 
had  deferved  well  of  the  public'.  And 

the 

*  Seethe  preceding  note. 
b  See  p.  151,  256,  with  many  other  places. 
«  Intervallo  opus  eft,  ut  credatur  deus,  femperque  hanc 
gratiam  magnis  viris  pofteri  reddunt.    Q^  Curtius,  1.  8. 

c.  5. 

d  Sufcepit  vita  hominum,  confuetudoque  communis, 
utbeneficiis  excellentis  virus  in  calum  fama  ac  voluntate 
tollerent.  Ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  24.  —  It  is 
fcarce  neceffary  to  obferve,  that,  in  the  language  of  the 

Heathens, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  303 
the  learned  Pliny  informs  us,  "  that  to 
"  requite  fuch  men,  by  ranking  them  a- 
"  mongft  the  gods,  was  acuftom  of the 
"  highejl  antiquity*".  He  adds,  "'that 
cc  the  names  of  all  the  other  gods,  and 
<c  of  the  ftars,  are  derived  from  men 
"  of  diftinguifhed  merit'". 

Nor  was  this  the  mere  effeft  of  private 
gratitude,  but  the  appointment  of  the 
ftate.  The  Jaw,  fays  Cicero,  which  com 
mands  thofe  who  were  confe crated  from  a- 
mongjl  men  to  be  worfoipped^  flews  that  the 
fouls  of  all  men  are  immortal,  but  that  thofs 
of  the.  brave  and  good  are  divine  V  S  eneca, 

in 

Heathens,  to  be  an  inhabitant  of  heaven,  and  to  be  a 
god,  are  the  fame  thing.  Concernin<*Berecynthia^  the 
mother  of  the  gods,  Virgil  fays, 

]jK\a. deum  partu,  centum  complexa  nepotes  ; 

Omnes  ccelicolas,  omnes  fupera  aha  tenentes. 

^En.  VI.  786. 

*  Hie  enim  efaantiquffimus  refcrendi  bene  merentibus 
gratiam  mos,  ut  tales  numinibus  adfcribantur.     Plin. 
1.  2.  c.  7. 

*  Quippe  et  omnium  aliorum  nominadeorum,  et  quse 
fupraretulifiderum,  ex  hominum  nata  funt  mentis. 

8  Quod  autem  ex  hominum  genere  confecratos,  ficut 
Herculem  et  caeteros,  coli  lex  jubet,  indicat  omnium 

cjuideni 


304        Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 

in  like  manner,  draws  a  proof  of  the  im 
mortality  of  the  foul  from  the  agreement 
of  mankind  in  either  fearing  or  worjhipping 
thejhades  6elowh.  This  language  of  Sene 
ca  may  be  explained  and  confirmed  by 
the  teftimony  of  Apuleius1,  when  he  re- 
prefents  the  ghofts  of  evil  men  as  mif- 
chievous;  but  thofe  of  the  wife  and  good 
as  gods  that  were  honoured  with  tem 
ples  and  religious  ceremonies.  It  is  re 
corded  of  Pericles,  who  might  be  called 
a  philofopher  as  well  as  a  ftatefman, 
that,  in  a  funeral  oration,  (in  which  he 
was  not  likely  to  contradifl  the  popular 
opinion,)  he  reprefented  thofe  who  die 
in  defence  of  their  country  as  becoming 
immortal  as  the  gods  werek.  Other  tefti- 

qiiidem  animos  immortales  efle,  fed  fortium  bonorum- 
quedivinos.  Cicero  de  Legibus,  1.2.  c*  n. 

h  Cum  de  animarum  immortalite  loquimur,  non  leve 
momentum  apud  nos  habet  confenfus  hominum,  aut 
timentium  inferos  aut  colentium.  Seneca,  ep.  117. 

»  De  deo  Socrat.  p.  689,  ed.  Parif.  cited  in  letters  to 
Worthington,  p.  38. 

k  Ap.  Plutarch.  Vit.  Periclis,  p.  156.  D. 


mones 


in  'the  ancient  heathen  World.      305 

monies *  to  the  humanity  of  the  popular 
gods  might  be  produced. 

But  it  is  fufficient  to  obferve,  in  gene 
ral,  that  all  the  different  fe£ts  of  the 
philofophers  eftablifh.  this  fact.  Would 
the  epicurean™  and  academic*  philofophers 
employ  the  whole  force  of  their  wit  and 
fatire  againft  the  worfhip  of  dead  men, 
if  it  had  not  been  praftifed  by  their 
countrymen  and  contemporaries  ?  The 
Stoics,  though  they  had  recourfe  to  a 
phyfical  explication  of  the  fables,  allow 
ed  that  they  were  literally  underftood  by 
the  people0.  And  their  explications  were 
condemned  by  the  other  fefts  as  unnatu 
ral  and  abfurd  in  the  higheft  degree  ;  fo 

Particularly  that  of  Varro;  which  will  be  cited 
when  the  games  militated  in  honour  of  the  gods  will  be 
conlidered. 

m  In  the  perfon  of  Velleius,  ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor. 
1.  i.  c.  15. 

n  In  the  perfon  of  Cotta,  ib.  c.  42. 

0  Ealbus  ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  24. 

X  as 


306         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

as  rather  to  eftablifh  than  deftroy  the  ere- 
dit  of  the  fables p. 

The  Platonifts,  and  thofe  who  wifhed 
to  conceal  from  public  view  the  earthly 
origin  of  the  gods,q  though  they  afTerted 
the  exiftence  of  celeftial  demons  ;  yet 
knew  that  thefe  demons  were  not  the  ob- 
jefts  of  the  eftablifhed  worfhipr.  Andy 
after  all  their  vain  attempts,  by  their 
fyftem  of  demonology,  to  fupport  the 
credit  of  the  public  religion,  they  found 
it  neceflary  to  efpoufe  the  principle 
upon  which  it  was  really  grounded,  the 
converfion  of  human  fouls  into  gods :  a 
principle  that  was  alfo  held  by  the  Sto- 

PCottaap.Cicer.N.D.  1.  3.  0.23.  cited  above,  p.  70. 
note  y.  Velleius  alfo  cenfures  the  ftoical  explication  of 
the  fables  as  delirantium  fomnia,  non  philofophorum  ju- 
dicia,  1.  2.  c^  16.  See  alfo  c.  14.  cited  above,  p.  296* 
Cotta  reproaches  the  Stoics  with  making  thofe  who 
were  called  gods  merely  natural  things.  Eos  enim,  qut 
di  appeilantur,  rerum  naturas  efle,  non  figuras 
rum.  L.  3.  c.  24.  comp.  1.  I.  c.  42. 

^See  above,  p.  159,  in  the  notes* 

r  See  above,  p.  234, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      307 

ies',  by  Plutarch1,  and  by  the  theiftic* 
philofophers  in  general.  Nay,  they  un 
dertook  to  defend  it  as  agreeable  to  right 
reafon,  and  not  merely  as  a  political  in- 
ftitution*;  and  accordingly  recommend 
ed  the  worfhip  of  human  fpiritsu.  The 
philofophers  laid  a  farther  foundation  for 
this  worfhip,  by  teaching  that  an  inter- 
courfe  between  the  celeftial  gods  and 
men  was  carried  on  by  the  mediation 
of  demons  of  terreftrial  origin^  who 
hereby  became  the  more  immediate  ob 
jects  of  divine  worfhip,  as  was  fliewn 
elfewhere*. 

So   that   the    philofophers,    fome  by 
their  attacks  upon  the  public  religion, 

a  See  Cicero  de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  24. 

*  See  above,  p.  165-167,    and  p.  234.     Differ t«  on 
Mir.  p.  182.     See  alfo  his  life  of  Romulus,  near  the 
tnd. 

u  As  to  Plato,  feeDiflert.  on  Mir.  p.  191. 

*  See  the  authors  referred  to  in  the  two  preceding  notes. 
Even  Cotta  thought  it  not  improbable  that  the  fouls  of  e- 
minent  men  were  divine  and  eternal.     Ap.  Cicer.  Nat.- 
Dcor.  1.  3.  c.  5. 

*Diflert.  on  Mir.  p.  175. 

X  2  others 


3  o  8         Worjhlp  of  bum  an  Spirits 

others  by  their  defences  of  it,  and  all  by 
their  conceffions  and  teftimonies,  efta- 
blifh  in  the  fulleft  manner  the  fa£t  in 
queftion,  the  general  prevalence  of  the 
woriliip  of  mortal  gods  amongft  the  an 
cient  Heathens.  And  their  language,  for 
the  moft  part,  after  ts  or  implies,  that 
thefe  gods  were  the  principal  objefts 
of  their  religious  worfhip7. 

III.  The  heathen  HISTORIANS, 
befides  bearing  teftimony  to  the  worfhip 
of  human  fpirits  in  particular  countries, 
furnifh.  general  proofs  of  the  prevalence 
of  this  worfhip  amongft  the  ancient 
Heathens. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  in  a  fragment  pre- 
ferved  by  Eufebius,  informs  usz,  that 

thofe 

7  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  i.  c.  42.  1.  3.  c.  21. 


ej/K/taj.  «?     f*iv  yccg  a. 

otoy    '/jAiov   xai    cihw.vr,vy    y.ai   rot 


Taruv 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       309 

thofe  of  the  highefl  antiquity  delivered  to  pof- 
ferity  two  opinions  refpetfing  the  gods. 
Some.,  they  faid,  were  eternal  and  Incor 
ruptible,,  fitch  as  the  fun,  moon,  and  other 
Jlars  -,  the  winds  alfo,  and  things  of  a  Jimi- 
lar  nature  ;  none  of  which  have  either  be 
ginning  or  end.  They  alfo  maintained,  thaty 
befides  tbefe,  there  were  terrejlrlal  gods,  who 
were  worshipped  for  the  benefits  conferred 
upon  mankind,  fuch  as  Hercules,  Bacchus^ 
and  Arlftceus,  and  others. 

This  teftimony  of  Diodorus  is  confir- 
jned  by  one  of  the  moil  curious  remains 
of  antiquity.  I  refer  to  the  treaty  made 
between  Hannibal  and  the  Carthaginians 
on  the  one  part,  and  Xenophanes,  the 
Athenian,  minifter-plenipotentiary  of 
Philip,  king  of  Macedonia,  in  his  own 
name  and  that  of  the  Macedonians  and 
their  allies,  on  the  other.  The  treaty  ex- 
prefles,  that  it  is  folemnly  entered  into 


.      Diodor. 
gic.  jFragm.  p.  633,  torn.  2.  ed.  Wcfleling. 


X  3  an4 


jio          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

and  ratified*  in  the  prefence  of  Jupiter^ 
Juno,  and  Apollo  :  in  the  prefence  of  the  de 
mon  of  the  Carthaginians,  and  Hercules, 
and  lolaus  :  in  the  prefence  of  Mars,  Tr/r 
ton,  Neptune  :  in  the  prefence  of  the  gods 
'who  accompanied  them  in  the  expedition,  and 
of  the  fun,  and  the  moon,  ^nnd  the  earth  :  in 
the  prefence  of  the  rivers,  and  the  meadows  , 
and  the  waters  :  in  the  prefence  of  all  the 
gods  who  prefide  over  Carthage  :  in  the  pre* 
fence  of  all  the  gods  who  prejide  over  Macedo 
nia  and  the  reft  of  Greece  :  in  the  prefence 
of  all  the  gods  who  prejide  over  the  affairs 
of  war,  and  are  ivitneffes  to  the  prefent  oath 
and  engagement*  '. 

We 


Aioj,  xai  H£«?,  xai  A?ro>kXi;yo;*     tv&vnov  $u.\- 
*•  T.  A.     Polyb.  Hift.  1.  7.  p.  695).  torn.  j.  Am- 
ftel.   1670. 

b  Virgil,  who  is  to  be  confidered  as  an  eminent  antj 
quarian  as  well  as  poet,  has  given  an  account  of  an 
oath  taken  by  ^Eneas,  (after  he  had  facrificed  to  the 
manes,}  which  agrees  in  a  great  meafure  with  the  oath 
cited  from  Polybius.  He  fwears  by  the  fun  and  earth,  - 
by  fountains  and  rivers,  as  well  as  by  Juno,  Jupiter, 
and  Mars.  JEn.  XII.  173,  176,  181.  Compare  alfo 
theoathofLatinus,  v.  195-200.  In  their  folemn  oaths 

they 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       311 

We  have  here  an  authentic  document 
of  the  civil  theology  of  the  nations  of  A- 
iia,  Europe,  and  Africa  -,  more  particu 
larly  of  the  Carthaginians  ;  and  confe- 
quently  of  the  Pheniclans^  from  whom 
they  were  defcended;  of  the  Macedonians^ 
of  the  Greeks  -,  and,  in  one  word,  of  all 
the  parties  to  the  treaty,  together  with 
their  confederates  and  allies.  And  if  we 
fuppofe,  what  feems  very  probable,  that 
the  treaty  was  drawn  up  after  the  old 
forms,  it  (hews  us  what  gods  had  been 
.acknowledged  in  all  thefe  nations  in 
very  early  times. 

The  deities  whom  the  treaty  particu 
larly  fpecifies  are,  firft  of  all,  Jupiter^ 
Juno,  and  Apollo ;  illuftrious  human 
perfonages,  who  by  the  general  confent 
of  mankind  had  been  advanced  to  divine 
honours,  and  were  worfhipped  as  gods 
of  the  higheft  order.  Their  being  placed 
herein  the  foremoft  rank  is  very  agreeable 
to  what  we  have  before  proved,  that  iome 

they  fometimes  fwore  by  all  the  gods,     Homer.  II.  III. 
276,  *98- 

X  4  men 


3  T  2         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

men  and  women  were  honoured  as  the 
greateftgods.  Thefe  deities  were  com 
mon  to  all  the  parties  concerned  in  the 
treaty6.  The  gods  next  mentioned  are, 
the  tutelary  deity  of  the  Carthaginians, 
(whofe  name  was  probably  kept  fecret  to 
prevent  his  evocation,)  and  Hercules  y 
and  his  nephew  and  affiftant,  Iolaus\ 
who  no  doubt  were  held  in  peculiar  vene 
ration  at  Carthage.  Nothing  need  be 
faid  to  prove  the  humanity  of  thefe 
gods;  nor  of  thofe  who  are  fpoken  of 
immediately  after  them,  Mars,  friton, 
Neptune6 :  objects  of  general  worfhip. 

The 

e  On  the  communes  dii  the  reader  may  confult  the 
commentators,  and  particularly  Servius,  on  Virgil, 
JEneid  VIII.  275.  XII.  118.  That  Hercules  was  one 
of  them  appears  from  the  pafiage  here  firft  referred  to, 
communem  vocate  deum.  The  penates  of  different 
countries  were  often  the.  fame.  Virgil  (Mn.  III.  15.) 
fpeaks  of  the  focii  penates  of  Thrace  and  Troy. 

A  The  fon  of  Iphiclus,  one  of  the  Argonasts.  Hy- 
giniFab.  14.  p.  33. 

e  Neptune  and  Mars  have  been  fpoken  of  before.  As 
to  Triton  ;  he,  who  was  faid  to  appear  to  Jafon  in  a  hu 
man  form  near  the  lake  Tritonis.,  was  a  prince  in  that 

place, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      3  1 3 

The  treaty  farther  makes  mention  of  the 
gods  who  accompany  the  expedition,,  that  is, 
whofe  images f  are  carried  with  the  army, 
Thefe  are  not  particularly  named  5  but 
the  defcription  here  given  of  them  marks 
the  clafs  to  which  they  belonged.  The 
divinities  next  fpecified  are  thofe  filled 
natural  by  the  philofophers  :  the  fun,  the 
moon,  the  earthy  the  rivers,  the  meadows, 
and  the  waters.  The  objects  of  nature  are 
here  diftinguifhed  from  all  the  foregoing 
deities,  particularly  from  Jupiter,  Juno, 
Mars,  and  Apollo.  And  therefore,  though 
the  lalt  is  fo  often  faid  to  be  the  fun,  and 
all  of  them  have  been  represented  as  na~ 

place.  Bannier'sMythol.  ¥.4.  6.3.  ch.  3.  p.  50-52. 
Engl.  Tranflat.  See  V,  I.  p.  117,  but  efpecially  V.  2. 
p.  511,  512. 

f  What  gods  were  reprefented  by  images  will  be  fliewn 
in  the  fequel.  Eufebius  fpeaks  of  the  gods  which  the 
army  of  Licinius  carried  with  them  as  ycxgour  *\$u\ot 

QavovTUv   iv   a.-^/v^oH;   otyothpcccri.      Vlt.    Conltantini,     1.    2. 

c.  16.  p.  544.  Thefe  were  the  camp  gods,  or  dii  mill- 
tares,  fpoken  of  by  Tertullian,  Apol.  c.  10.  p.  n. 
where  they  are  ranked  amongil  thofe  that  had  been  men. 

tural 


314         Wor/hip  of  hitman  Spirits 

tural  gods,  yet  they  belonged  to  a  diffe 
rent  elafs  ;  and  the  phyfical  explication 
of  them  could  not  be  agreeable  to  the 
civil  theology  of  the  ancient  nations, 
which  was  the  real  creed  of  the  vulgar, 
and  the  religion  profefled  by  all  orders 
of  the  ftate.  As  to  the  natural  objefts 
themfelves  here  enumerated}  it  does  not 
clearly  appear,  from  this  pafiage,  that 
the  civil  theology  confidered  them  fo 
much  as  being  pofleffed  of  internal  divi 
nity,  as  being  inhabited  by  prefiding 
deities.*  The  latter  view,  indeed,  was 
not  ineonfiftent  with  the  former;  and 
the  divine  prefidents  and  the  things 
prefided  over  are  often  confounded. 
Laftly,  the  treaty  makes  general  men^ 
tion,  both  of  \hz  guardian  deities  of  Car 
thage,  Greece.,  and  Macedony  who  could 
be  no  other  than  the  princes  and  heroes 
by  whom  thefe  ftates  and  kingdoms 
were  founded  ;  and  of  the  gods  who  pre- 


*  See  below,  p.  318,  note  ra. 


'in  tie  ancient  heathen  World.      3 1 1 

Jide  over  the  affairs  of  <war,  of  whom 
the  principal  was  Mars*, 

1  could  not  avoid  taking  this  notice  of 
the  oath  of  Hannibal  and  Xenophanes; 
becaufe  it  throws  light  upon  our  fubjeft, 
and  has,  I  think,  been  overlooked  by  all 
other  writers  upon  it  whom  I  have  hap 
pened  to  confult.  But  it  is,  I  prefume, 
needlefs  to  cite  farther  general  tefti- 
monies  to  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 
from  the  hiftorians,  as  many  proofs 
of  this  point  were  produced  from  them 
when  we  were  diftin6lly  (hewing  that 
fuch  worfhip  prevailed  in  the  feveral  na 
tions  of  the  world.  I  muft,  however, 
make  one  farther  remark. 

The  heathen  religion  entered  into  all 
thofe  public  concerns  which  are  the  pro 
vince  of  hiftory;  it  was  interwoven  with 
the  conftitution  of  ftates  and  kingdoms, 
and  influenced  all  their  councils  and  o- 
perations.  If  any  law  was  to  be  ena£l- 


Tuque,  indyte  Mavors, 


Cunfta  tuo  qui  bella,  pater,  fub  numine  torques. 

Virg.  J£n.  XII.  179. 


3 1 6         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

ed ;  if  any  war  was  refolved  upon,  or 
concluded  ;  if  any  city  was  befieged  or 
taken ;  if  any  fignal  calamity  was  fuffer- 
ed,  or  bleffing  received ;  the  gods  were 
confulted,  fupplicated,  and  appeafed, 
by  various  ceremonies  and  facrifices  -, 
and  their  imagined  interpofition  in  fa 
vour  of  their  votaries  was  acknowledged 
by  paying  them  the  honours  vowed  in 
the  day  of  danger  and  diftrefs.  Hence  it 
comes  to  pafs  that  the  religion  of  the  an 
cient  nations  was  fo  much  intermixed 
with  their  civil  hiftory, 

Now  to  thofe  who  are  acquainted  with 
antiquity  I  leave  it  to  determine,  whe 
ther  the  gods,  to  whom  they  decreed  di 
vine  honours,  flatues,  temples,  altars, 
priefls,  facrifices,  feftivals,  and  all  the 
apparatus  of  divinity,  on  the  foregoing 
or  other  public  occafions,  were  folely, 
or  even  moft  ufually,  ether,  air,  Jire, 
water,  the  earth,  the  fea,  the  fun,  and 
moon.  Herodotus,  during  his  long  refi- 
dence  in  Egypt'  was  curious  and  inqui- 

fitive 


m  the  ancient  heathen  World. 

litive  concerning  the  gods  and  religious 
ceremonies  of  the  Egyptians  ;  yet  where 
has  he  fpoken  of  the  temples,  prielts, 
and  rites,  of  the  ftars  and  planets,  a- 
mongft  that  people h  ? 

We  find,  I  allow,  the  Greeks,  and 
Romans,  and  others,  addreffing  prayers 
to  the  fun1,  or  fwearing  by  itk.  At  Rome 
a  temple  was  erefted  to  the  fun  and 
moon1 ,  and  the  fame  thing  might  be 
done  in  other  places.  But  the  idea  of  thefe 
celeftial  luminaries,  which  the  mytholo 
gy  (on  which  the  civil  theology  was 
founded)  conveyed  to  the  people,  was 

h  Even  the  learned  Jablonfki,  though  it  fo  ill  agrees 
with  his  own  fyllem,  acknowledges,  —  Herodotus,,  — 
de  planetarum  templis,  facerdotibus,  et  facris,  nihil 
quicquamtamen  unquam  adfert.  Eftqueetiam,  prater 
eum,  vix  fcriptor  alius,  qui  de  cultu  planetarum  apad 
^Egyptios  vel  tantillum  nos  doceat.  Tom.  2.  Prolegoni. 
§.  27.  p.lxiii. 

4  See  Dido's  prayer  to  the  fun  and  the  other  gods^ 
Virg.  JEn.  IV.  607. 

k  Virg.  ^En.  XII.  176.  Homer.  II.  IIL  277.  So 
phocles,  Oedipus  Tyrannus,  v.  674,  675, 

1  Rofinus,  An-tiq.  Roman,  p.  122. 

v-ery 


3 1 8         Worjltp  of  human  Spirits 

very  different  from  that  entertained 
of  them  by  the  philofophers,  who  confi- 
dered  them  as  natural  divinities". 

m  The  theclogers  make  mention  of  feveral  funs*  One* 
was  the  fon  of  Jupiter  ;  another,  the  fon  of  Hyperion  5 
a  third  fprang  from  Vulcan  ;  a  fourth  was  born  of  A- 
cantho ;  and  a  fifth  was  the  father  of  ^Eta  and  Circe* 
Cicer.  de  Nat«  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  21.  In  different  nations^ 
the  fun  was  thought  to  be  Belenus*  Ofiris,  Heliogaba- 
lus  or  Elagabal.  The  laft  was  a  Syrian  deity,  of  whom 
it  is  faid,  that  he  appeared  to  Aurelian  in  a  human 
fhape,  and  was  married  to  the  goddefs  Urania.  His 
worfhip  was  firft  introduced  into  Rome  by  his  votary 
Heliogabalus,  though  a  temple  had  been  creeled  to  Sol 
many  ages  before.  See  Dion.  Gaff.  V.  2.  p.  1338, 
1339,  1367,  ed.  Reimari.  The  Englifh  reader  may 
confult  Crevier's  Rom.  Hift.  V.  8.  p.  228,  229.  V.  9. 
p.  157.  and  Univerfal  Hift.  V.  15.  p.  353.  Now  all 
thefe  views  of  the  fun  are  very  different  from  thofe  gi 
ven  of  it  by  the  philofophers,  and,  inilead  of  confuting, 
confirm  our  main  do&rine. 

As  to  the  other  natural  divinities^  the  fields,  for  ex 
ample  ;  they  were  not  fo  properly  the  immediate  ob 
jects  of  public  worfhip  as  the  gods  and  godde/Tes,  who 
were  confidered  as  the  prefidents  and  guardians  of  the 
fields. 

Dique  deaeque  omnes,  fludium  quibus  arva  tueri. 

Virg.  Georg.  I.  21. 

But   this  fubject  cannot  be  farther  profecuted  in  this 
place. 

it 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World. 

It  will,  I  apprehend,  be  found  upon 
examination,  that,  according  to  the  hif- 
torians,  the  public  devotion  was  princi 
pally  directed  towards  gentilitial,  tutela 
ry,  and  local,  deities,  the  guardians 
of  particular  nations  and  people,  fuch 
as  had  been  the  objefts  of  their  former 
care;  and  to  thofe  greater  gods  whom 
we  have  before  proved  to  be  men.  It  is 
with  an  account  of  their  worfhip  that 
hiftory  fo  much  abounds.  Hence  ma 
ny  of  the  Heathens  affirmed,  that  their 
gods  were  not  gods  by  nature  -,  but  by  art 
and  certain  laws-,  and  were  different  in 
different  countries,  according  to  the  ap 
pointment  of  legiflators/. 

From  the  feveral  foregoing  teftimonies 
of  the  pagan  poets^  philofophers,  and 
hiftorians,  we  may  conclude,  that  the 
more  immediate  objefts  of  the  eftablifhed 


©£85,       W    [AKKXglS)       fiVOCJ      TT^WTOV    (flStfftV    OVTOl    TJ^XTJ,     Of 


»Oj(/.oStT»(uayo>.      PlatO  de  JLe- 

gibus,  1.  10.  p.  889.  E.  ed,  Serrani. 

worfhip, 


320         ft?  or/hip  of  human  Spirits 

worfhip,  in  the  idolatrous  nations* 
were,  for  the  moft  part,  dead  men  and 
women  ;  unlefs  you  can  fuppofe  that  the 
Heathens  of  every  clafs  and  order,  and 
in  every  age,  confpired  to  give  a  falfe  ac 
count  of  their  own  gods  and  demons. 
And,  though  the  cuftom  of  appealing  to 
the  fun  and  moon,  and  other  gods  ftiled 
natural,  was  on  fome  occafions  ftill  pre- 
ferved,  yet  the  objects  of  thofe  appeals, 
according  to  the  civil  theology,  were  not 
properly  the  elements  and  heavenly  bo 
dies  themfelves,  as  conceived  of  by  the 
theiftic  philofophers,  but  rather  human 
fpirits,  as  will  be  fhewn  at  large  here 
after. 

It  ought  not  however  to  be  concealed, 
that  a  very  learned  writer  has  attempted 
to  deftroy  the  force  of  this  argument. 
He  allows,  indeed,  that  the  pagan  gods 
were  not  only  fuppofed  by  chriftian  wri 
ters  to  have  been  deified  mortals,  'who  'were 
worfoipped  In  the  countries  'where  they  died ; 
but  that  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  Heathen 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       321 

themfehes,  the  very  people  by  whom  thefe  gods 
were  honoured:  yet  Jlill>  adds  our  author, 

//  is  tf  MISTAKE0. 

It  is  certainly  no  fmall  prefumptioa 
of  the  truth  of  the  account,  given  in  the 
preceding  fheets,  of  the  opinion  the 
Heathens  entertained  concerning  their 
own  gods,  that  it  is,  in  this  explicit 
manner,  confirmed  by  a  writer  whofe  ex- 
tenfive  knowledge  of  antiquity  cannot  be 
difputed  -y  efpecially  as  that  account  mi 
litates  fo  ftrongly  againfl  his  own  hypo- 
thefis. 

At  the  fame  time  I  cannot  eafily  per- 
fuade  myfelf,  that  the  whole  gentile 
world,  not  excepting  the  moft  enlight 
ened  nations  of  it,  and  the  moft  illuftri- 
ous  fages  that  adorned  it,  and  who  had 
made  the  civil  theology  their  particular 
ftudy,  lay  under  fuch  a  ftrange  delufion, 
with  refpech  to  their  gods,  as  to  believe 
they  were  deified  -  mortals,  and  natives 
of  the  countries  where  they  were  wor- 

•  Bryant,  Mythol.  V.  i.  p,  454,  455. 

Y  fhipped, 


322  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
fhipped,  if  in  reality  they  were  not  fo. 
As  far  as  mere  authority  is  concerned* 
that  of  any  modern  writer,  whatever  his 
learning  and  abilities  may  be,  can,  in 
this  cafe,  have  no  weight,  when  fet  a- 
gainft  the  fentiments  of  the  Heathens, 
who  had  not  merely  fuperior  advantages 
for  forming  a  right  judgement  on  the 
point,  but  certain  information  concern 
ing  it,  and  who  indeed  could  not  be 
miftaken  in  their  opinion  refpefting  the 
plain  matter  of  fa£t,  viz.  that  thofe,  to 
whom  they  paid  divine  honours,  were 
princes  and  heroes  whom  they  them- 
felves  had  deified.  Waving,  therefore, 
on  this  occafion,  Mr.  Bryant's  authori 
ty,  let  us  proceed  to  confider  the  force 
of  his  reafbning. 

//  is  not  credible,  fays  our  author p, 
however  blind  idolatry  may  have  been,  that 
people  Jhould  enforine  perfons  as  immortal, 
'where  they  had  the  plainejl  evidence  of  their 
mortality,  that  is,  at  their  tombs.  The 

P  Ib.  p.  452, 

Gentiles 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      323 

Gentiles  believed,  that  the  fouls  of  vir 
tuous  men,  after  the  diflblution  of  their 
bodies,  became  immortal  gods q ;  and  on 
this  ground  paid  them  divine  honours. 
As  to  the  reafon  of  worfnipping  them  in 
the  places  where  they  were  buried,  it  will 
be  taken  notice  of  in  the  next  feftionr  > 
and  will,  I  am  perfuaded,  occur,  on  a 
moment's  recolleftion,  to  Mr.  Bryant* 

It  is  farther  urged9,  that,  if  divine  ho 
nours  were  conferred,  they  were  the  effects 
of  time.  This  was  not  the  cafe  always '; 
as  appears  from  the  hiftory  both  of  po- 
pifh  and  pagan  idolatry  :  and  fafts  can 
not  be  overturned  by  any  fpeculative 
reafonings.  But  indeed,  at  what  time 
was  it  more  likely  that  the  fuperftitious 
part  of  mankind  fhould  pay  divine  ho- 

*  Diflert.  on  Mir*    p.  182,  214.      Comp.  Bryant* 
V.  i.  p.  455. 

r  At  the  end  of  the  ift  article. 

*  Bryant,  V.  I,  p.  452. 

*  Eufeb.  Przep.  Ev,    1.  2.  c,  5.    p.  70.  cited  undef 
the  4th  article  of  this  feclion,  p.  344, 

Y  2  nours 


3  24  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
nours  to  a  hero  than  immediately  after 
his  death,  when  the  admiration  of  his 
godlike  endowments,  the  remembrance 
of  his  recent  benefits,  and  the  glory 
of  his  illuftrious  exploits,  were  frefh  in 
their  minds ;  and  while  their  paffionate 
grief,  for  the  lofs  they  had  fuftained, 
altnoft  unavoidably  tranfported  them  be 
yond  the  bounds  of  reafon  ?  After  their 
refpeft  and  affeftion  were  cooled  by  time, 
it  would  not  be  fo  eafy  to  kindle  their  de 
votion.  Again, 

The  gentleman  obje6tsu,  that  Varro, 
according  to  T^ertullian,  makes  the  Jupiters 
in  number  three  hundred,  and  mentions  for 
ty  heroes  of  the  name  of  Hercules.  Our 
author  allows,  that  many  mountains 'were 
called  by  the  name  of  Olympus w.  But  does 
this  prove  there  was  no  fuch  moun 
tain  ?  Is  it  at  all  incredible,  that  diffe 
rent  men  fhould  be  called  by  the  fame 
name  ?  Or  can  the  fatl  in  queftion  be 
vouched  by  a  better  authority  than  Var- 

«  V.  i.  p.  457.     Seealfop.  453,  454. 
"•  P.  239. 

ro? 


In  the  ancient  heatloen  World.       325 

ro  ?  His  opinion  is  in  a  great  degree  con 
firmed  by  other  writers x. 

But  it  is  faidy,  men  are  not  agreed 
when  Jupiter  lived.  On  a  point  of  fuch 
high  antiquity  as  the  age  of  the  firft  Ju 
piter  can  we  wonder  there  fhould  be  a 
difference  amongft  the  learned  ?  They 
were  the  more  likely  not  to  agree  on  this 
point,  as  feveral  perfons  were  called  by 
the  name  of  Jupiter  who  lived  in  diffe 
rent  ages.  The  cafe  was  the  fame  in  o- 
ther  inftances.  Different  heroes  bore  the 
name  of  Hercules,  for  example,  who 
were  neither  of  the  fame  age  nor  coun 
try  :  which  has  introduced  much  confu- 
fion  into  their  hiftory.  This  confufion 
has  been  increafed  by  their  afcribing  to 

*  See  above,  p.  246,  in  the  note.  It  is  fhewn,  in  Cic. 
de  N.  D.  1.  3.  c.  16,  21,  22,  23,  that  there  were  many 
gods  who  bore  the  name  of  Hercules,  feveral  Jupiters, 
Suns,  Vulcans,  Mercurys,  ^Efculapii,  Apollos,  Dianas, 
Dionyfi,  Venufes,  Minervas,  and  Cupids.  Nor  was  it 
an  unufual  thing  for  every  king  to  be  called  Jupiter. 
Reges  omnes  3W?,  reginas  veroSea;,  appellari  fuit  foli- 
tum.  Tzetzes,  upon  the  authority  of  Ptolemy.  Ap. 
Radiant.  1. 1.  c.  8.  in  the  concluding  note,  ed.  Dufrefnoy. 

r  P.  457-460. 

Y  3  the 


326  Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 
the  later  heroes  of  one  country  the  virtues 
and  exploits  of  the  more  ancient  heroes 
of  another2.  Mr.  Bryant  himfelf  fays,  It 
is  to  be  obferved,  that,  when  colonies  made 
any  where  a  fettlement,  they  ingrafted  their 
antecedent  hijlory  upon  the  fubfequent  events 
of  the  place*:  that  the  Greeks  adopted  all  fo 
reign  hijlory  •>  and  fuppofed  it  to  have  been 
of  their  own  country'6 :  and  that  their  ori-* 
ginal  hijlory  was  foreign  y  and  ingrafted  up* 
on  the  hijlory  of  the  country  where  they  fet 
tled*.  Thefe  obfervations  not  only  remove 
the  obje&ion  we  are  here  confidering  re- 
fpefting  the  age  in  which  Jupiter  lived, 
but  another  difficulty  alfo  on  which  great 
ftrefs  is  laidd,  viz.  that  the  heroes  of  one 

2  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  iii.  p.  243.  ed.  WefT.  takes 
notice  of  three  heroes  who  bore  the  name  of  Bacchus, 
and  of  the  fame  number  of  eminent  perfons  who  were 
called  Hercules,  the  laft  of  whom  was  the  fon  of  Jupi 
ter  by  Alcmena.  The  hiflorian  adds,  that  the  exploits 
of  the  two  former  were  folely  afcribed  to  the  laft,  as  if 
there  had  never  Bfeen  more  than  one  Hercules,  i7?  c»og 
HgccxXtu*;  yeyovoroi;  sv  trctvri  TU  w^oTEgov  uiuvi*  See  alfo 
1.  I.  p.  28.  and  Bryant,  V.  2.  p.  57  &  feq. 

a  Preface,  p.xii.  xiii.         *>  Mythol.  V.  I,  p.  175. 

F  P,  178,          <P.459- 

country 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       327 

country  had  not  only  the  fame  names, 
but  the  fame  relations  and  connexions, 
with  thofe  of  another. 

The  Heathens,  we  are  farther  told, 
differed  from  one  another  about  the  place 
where  Jupiter  was  torn,  and  where  he 
was  buried*.  This  might  well  be  the 
cafe,  fuppofing  there  were  feveral  Jupi 
ter  s.  Even  without  having  recourfe  to 
this  folution,  the  objection  is  inconclu- 
(ive.  Did  not  feven  cities  contend  for 
the  honour  of  giving  birth  to  Homer  ? 
Will  you  infer  from  thence  that  no  fuch 
poet  ever  exifted  ?  But  the  tomb  of  Ju 
piter,  it  is  urged,  was  fuppofed  to  be  in 
feveral  places ;  and  the  fame  is  alfo  faid 
of  the  tombs  of  Ifis  and  Ofirisf.  When 
our  learned  author  made  this  objeftion, 
he  did  not  recollect,  that  it  was  cuftoma- 
ry  with  the  ancients  to  ere6t  monuments 
in  honour  of  the  dead  which  did  not  con 
tain  any  of  their  remains.  Thefe  vacant 
monuments  were  raifed,  not  only  for 

*  P.  459,  460,         f  P.  461, 

Y  4  thofe 


328         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

thofe  perfons  who  had  not  obtained 
funeral g,  but  alfo  for  thofe  who  had  fuch 
a  funeral  in  another  place ;  of  which  we 
find  frequent  mention  in  Paufanias,  who 
fpeaks  of  fuch  honorary  tombs  dedicated 
to  Euripides,  Ariftomenes,  Achilles, 
Dameon,  Tirefias,  and  others  \  At 
thefe  tombs,  though  the  bodies  of  the 
deceafed  were  not  depofited  in  them,  their 
ghofts  wrere  invoked,  and  thefe  invoca 
tions  were  thought  to  bring  them  to  the 
habitations  prepared  for  them1.  Sacrifi 
ces  alfo  were  offered,,  and  libations  pour 
ed 

s  The  ghofts  of  men  unburied  were  thought  to  wan 
der  in  mifery  for  a  hundred  years,  unlefs  an  empty  fe- 
pulchre  was  erefted  to  them.  Potter's  Gr.  An.  V.  2. 
B.  4.  c.  7.  p.  245.  See  Virg.  ^n.  VI.  371. 

h  Potter  ubi  fupra,  &  Guther.  de  Jure  Manium, 
1.2.  c.  18.  —  Saspe  in  tumulisfme  corpore  nominalegi. 
Ovid.  Metamorph.  1.  n,  v. 429. 

»  With  this  view  ^Eneas  invoked  the  ghoft  of  Dei- 
phobus : 

Tune  egomet  tumulum  Rhceteo  in  litore  inanem 
Conftitui,  etmagna  manes  tervoce  vocavi. 

Virg.  ^En.  VI.  505* 

Ergo  inftauramus  Polydoro  funus,  et  ingens 
Adgeritur  tumulo  tellus :  ftant  manibus  aras, 
Icferimus  tepido  fpumautia  cymbia  lade, 

Sanguinis 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  329 
ed  out,  to  their  afhes k.  It  was  cuftoma^ 
ry  in  the  moft  early  ages  to  raife  fepuU 
chres  to  perfons  of  eminent  merit,  mere-, 
ly  to  preferve  their  memory  and  perpe 
tuate  their  fame.  Hence  it  came  to  pafs, 
that  the  fame  perfon  often  had  many  fe- 
pulchres  ere6ted  to  him  in  different  pla 
ces1.  There  might  well  therefore  be  a 

difference 

Sanguinis  et  facri  pateras  :  animamque  fepulchro 
Condimus,  et  magna  fupremum  voce  ciemus. 

-En.  III.  62, 

Pelias  recalled  to  his  native  country  the  foul  of  Phryxus, 
who  died    abroad.      Pindar.  Pythia,  Ode  IV.  v.  284* 
See  the  next  note. 
k  Virgil  fays  of  Andromache  : 
Libabat  cineri  Andromache,  manifque  vocabat 
He&oreum  ad  tumulum  :  viridi  quern  cefpite  inanem 
Et  geminas,  caufiam  lacrimis,  facraverat  aras. 

Virg.  <En.  III.  303. 

Concerning  Drufus,  who  was  buried  in  the  Campus 
Martius,  Suetonius  fpeaks  in  the  following  terms : 
Caeterum  exercitus  honorarium  ei  tumulum  excitavit  : 
circa  quern  deinceps  ftato  die  quotannis  decurreret,  et 
Galliarum  civitates  publice  facrificarent,  at.  fupplica- 
rent.  Vit.  Claudii,  c.  i.  See  Virg.  JEn.  Ill,  62-68,, 
cited  in  part  in  the  preceding  note. 

1  Vetuftiflimi   moris  fuit  in    honorem  amici  ac  bene 
Uieriti  cujufpiam   viri  fepulchrum   illi  ftatuere.     Non 

quod 


3  3  o         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

difference  of  opinion  amongft  the  Hea 
thens  about  the  real  places  where  thofe 
men  were  buried,  whom  they  fo  highly 
efteemed  as  to  exalt  into  the  rank  of 
gods.  At  the  fame  time,  the  very  con 
tention,  between  different  cities  and 
countries,  for  the  honour  of  having 
their  tombs,  ihews  that  all  were  agreed 
in  this  one  point,  that  their  gods  were 
men  who  had  died  and  been  buried. 

Some  have  urged  the  abfurdities  of 
the  fables  concerning  the  heathen 
gods  with  the  fame  view  as  Mr.  Bryant 
does  their  inconjiftencies.  But  {hall  we  de-» 
ny  the  exiftence  of  the  popifh  faints, 
merely  becaufe  their  hiftory  is  filled  with 
legendary  ttories  as  void  of  fenfe  as  they 

quod  conditi  effent  illic  ejus  cineres  atque  ofTa :  fedme-r 
moriae  tantum  id  tributum,  illuftrandique  ejus  nominis 
gratia.  Qua  e  re  contigit  ejufdem  perfaepe  viri  diverfis 
In  locis  pluraetiam  fepulchra  inveniri.  Jovian,  lib.  de 
Mag.  apudPet.  Moreftel.  Pompa  Feralis,  1.  10.  c.  i. 

Thecuftom  of  railing  vacant  fepulchres  was  very  an 
cient,  as  appears  from  the  mention  of  them  in  Virgil, 
./En.  VI.  505.  IX.  214,  215.  Homer  alfo  makes  men 
tion  of  a  cenotaph,  or  honorary  tomb,  OdyfT.  IV.  584. 

are 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      331 

are  of  truth  ?  Many  events  that  have  re 
ally  happened  have,  as  Paufanias"  ob- 
ferves,  been  rendered  incredible  by  thofe 
who  have  raifed  a  fuperftruclure  of  lies 
upon  them.  Befides,  the  abfurdity  of  the 
heathen  fables  concerning  their  gods  is 
the  lefs  to  be  wondered  at,  as  fomeof  thofe 
fables  might  have  a  latent  meaning, 
and  were  not  to  be  literally  underftood. 
To  return  to  our  author. 

He  urges  a  farther  obje6tion  againft 
the  human  origin  of  the  gods,  drawn 
from  the  character  of  the  Helladian  and  o- 
ther  Greek  writers,  who  afferted  it.  Ac 
cording  to  him,  the  Grecians^  'who  received 
their  religion  from  Egypt  and  the  eaft,  mifcon- 
Jlrued  every  thing  that  was  imported \  and  ad 
ded  to  thefe  abfurdities  largely.  'They  adopted 
deities  to  whofe  pretended  attributes  they  'were 
totally  ft  rangers"  T'he  writers  of  Greece  did 
not  know  the  purport  of  the  words  which 
were  found  in  their  ancient  hymns* .  The 
great  eft  part  of  the  Grecian  theology  arofefrom 

m  Paufanias,  Arcad.  p.  60 1. 

*  V,  I.  p.  306.  »  P.  85.     Seep.  252. 

mif concept  ions 


332         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

mifconceptions  and  blunders  ;  and  the  ftories 
concerning  their  gods  and  heroes  were  found 
ed  on  terms  mi/interpreted  and  abufed*. 
They  miflook  the  Hebrew  word  cahen, 
which  fignifies  a  prieft,  for  the  Greek 
kuoKy  and  mifconftrued  it  a  dog"1:  they 
changed  Omphi-El  (which,  according  to 
our  author,  fignifies  oracle  of  the  fun) 
into  omphalosy  a  navel r :  and,  fo  little  did 
they  underftand  their  own  language, 
that,  from  the  word  r&qog,  (taphosj  which 
they  adopted  in  a  limited  fenfe  >  (that  is,  as 
fignifying  a  tomb,)  they  formed  a  notion 
of  the  gods  having  been  buried  in  every  place 
where  there  was  a  tumulus  to  their  honour •% 
tfhey  formed  perfonages  out  of  the  names 
of  towers  and  other  edifices* ;  and  out  of  eye- 
ry  obfolete  term" ;  they  conftantly  miflook  ti^ 
ties  for  names,  and  from  thefe  titles  multi- 

P  P.  453.  See  below,  p.  336,  where  the  reader  will 
find  more  of  Mr.  Bryant's  cenfures  of  the  Grecians, 

9  Seep.  329-352.  Why  might  not  the  Egyptians 
worfhip  dogs  as  well  as  other  animals  ?  You  have  no 
more  reafon  to  fet  afide  the  teltimony  of  the  antients  in 
the  one  cafe  than  in  the  other. 

?P.  240.      SP.  453.      t  y.  2.  p.  i.      "V.  i.  p.  ?2. 

flied 


in  tie  ancient  heathen  World.      333 

plied  their  deities  and  heroes".  Out  of  every 
title  they  made  a  god  *  ;  and  mijlook  temples 
for  deities*. 

Our  author  might  have  made  fhorter 
work  with  the  Grecians,  and  called  them 
at  once  perfeft  idiots.  But  it  feems  it  was 
only  with  refpe£l  to  the  fubje6l  of  reli 
gion,  on  which  their  fentiments  differed 
from  his,  that  they  difcovered  fuch  a  to 
tal  want  of  underftanding.  In  all  other 
refpeffs,  he  admits,  they  were  the  ivifejl  of 
all  thefons  of  men z.  This  commendation 
renders  his  cenfure  very  improbable. 

The  improbability  of  the  cenfure  will 
appear  ftill  greater,  if  you  confider  who 
were  the  firft  founders  of  the  Grecian 
theology.  They  were  the  natives  or  inha 
bitants  of  Syria  or  Egypt3 ;  who  came 

*  V.  i.  p.  176. 

x  v- i-  p-  307- 

7  V.  i.  p.  175.     Comp.p.444,  445. 

-  V.  i.  p. 245. 

a  See  above,  p.  210,  and  Bryant,  V.  i.  p.  182-186. 
The  Helladians  themfelves,  he  fays,  came  from  Egypt 
and  Syria,  p.  150. 

with 


334  Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
with  colonies  into  Greece,  fettled  in  that 
country,  and  there  eftablifhed  their  own 
religion  with  the  affiftance  of  the  priefts 
who  always  attended  fuch  expeditions.  * 
They  afterwards  fuperintended  the  reli 
gion  which  they  planted.  Let  every  rea 
der  judge  whether,  under  fuch  inftruc- 
tors,  the  Greeks  could  fall  into  thofe 
grofs  miftakes  which  are  here  imputed 
to  them,  but  of  which  no  proof  is  pro 
duced." 

Moreover,  if  we  inquire  carefully  in 
to  the  matter  of  fa6l,  we  (hall  find,  that 
the  Greeks  did  not  mifconftrue  every 
thing  imported  from  Egypt  and  the  eaft  : 
for  the  general  fyftem  of  religion  in  thefe 
feveral  countries  was  the  famec,  and 
their  notions  of  the  gods  were  not  very 
different.  Nay,  the  gentleman  himfelf  al 
lows,  "  that  all  the  rites  of  the  Hella- 
"  dians,  as  well  as  their  gods  and  heroes, 
"  were  imported  from  the  eaft,  and 
"  chiefly  from  Egypt'".  Their  theology, 

•*  Bryant,  V.  I,  p.  281.      c  See  above,  p.  211,212. 
d  V.  i.  p.  149,  150.     Seeabove,  p.  331. 

therefore^ 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      335 

therefore,  did  not  arife  from  their  own 
mifconceptions  and  blunders. 

Neceffity  alone  could  compel  our  au 
thor  to  give  fo  unfavourable  an  account 
of  the  Greek  writers.  If  their  authority 
be  admitted,  his  hypothefis  muft  fall 
to  the  ground.  They,  Mr.  Bryant  al 
lows,  confidered  their  gods  as  deified 
mortals  j  but  he  fays  they  were  miflaken, 
and  that  moft  of  the  deified  perfonages  never 
exifted,  but  were  mere  titles  of  the  deity,  the 
fun*.  It  may  perhaps  be  faid,  that  it  was 
not  neceffity,  but  irrefiftible  evidence,  that 
compelled  Mr.  Bryant  to  adopt  an  hypo 
thefis  fo  deftruftive  of  the  credit  of  all  the 
Greek  writers,  and  indeed  of  the  whole 
heathen  world.  Let  us  enquire  whether 
he  produces  any  fuch  evidence. 

His  hypothefis  refts  principally  upon 
two  grounds.  One  of  them  is  etymolo 
gical  deduftion,  a  foundation  far  too 
flight  to  fupport  an  edifice  of  any  mag- 

«  V.  I.  p.  452.     Seep.  305-317. 

nitude. 


336  Worjhip  of  human  Spirit* 
ttitude.  But,  two  very  learned  writersf  ha 
ving  pointed  out  fo  many  miftakes  in 
Mr.  Bryant's  etymologies,  nothing  far 
ther  need  be  offered  on  the  fubject,  ex 
cept  it  be  that  the  gentleman  himfelf  has 
deftroyed  his  own  argument.  ^  He  fayss> 
that  he  has  rendered  ancient  terms  as  they 
were  exprejjed  by  them,  viz.  the  Grecians, 
who,  according  to  our  author11,  changed 
every  foreign  term  to  fomething  Jimilar  in 
their  own  language  :  to  fomethingjimilar  in 
found)  however  remote  in  meaning,  being  led 
fokly  by  the  ear.  On  this  ground  his  ety 
mologies  are  built  •>  and  yet  he  affirms, 
that  the  Grecians  could  not  articulate  orfpell 
the  names  of  the  deities  they  adopted^  and  did 
not  know  how  to  arrange  the  elements  of  which 
the  words  were  compofed1.  If  the  Greeks 
did  not  underftand  the  language  of  their 
foreign  inftruftors,  yet  the  latter  certain 
ly  underftood  the  language  of  the  former, 

f  See  Bibliotheca  critica,  parsprima,  p.  53.  printed 
at  Amflerdam,  1777  ;  and  Richardfon's  Differtationon 
the  languages  of  the  eaftern  nations,  p.  104,  &  feq<  & 
p.  380,  zd  ed. 

£  Preface,  p.  xvi,       h  V.  I,  p.  176.       j  Id,  p.  306. 

otherwise 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  337 
otherwife  they  could  not  have  converfed 
together.  Now,  there  being  a  language 
common  to  both,  the  Greeks,  we  may 
reafonably  fuppofe,  learned  the  meaning 
of  the  foreign  terms  they  adopted.  But, 
according  to  our  author,  they  not  only  mif- 
underftood,  but  were  unable  to  articulate ', 
the  names  of  the  foreign  gods.  How,  then, 
could  they  articulate  their  names  when 
transferred  into  the  Greek  language,  by 
words  fimilar  in  found?  The  articulation 
of  words  of  the  fame  found,  if  imprafti- 
cableinone  language,  muft  be  equally  fo 
in  every  other.  On  the  gentleman's  prin 
ciples,  therefore,  there  could  be  no  affini 
ty  m  found, any  more  than  in  fenfe, between 
the  ancient  terms  and  the  Grecian  mode  of 
expreffing  them  -,  and  confequently  no  ar 
gument  can  be  drawn  from  the  etymology 
of  ancient  terms  as  expreflfed  by  the  Greeks. 
The  other  ground,  on  which  Mr. 
Bryant's  hypothecs  is  built,  is  the  wri 
tings  of  the  Greeks,  thofe  very  Greeks 
whofe  teftimony  he  had  taken  fo  much 
pains  to  difparage.  All  our  knowledge 
Z  of 


3  3  8         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 
of  the  gentile  hiftory,  fays  this  learned  wri 
ter*,  muft  come  either  through  the  hands  of  the 
Grecians,  or  of  the  Romans  who  copied  from 
them.     But  of  what  ufe  can  it  be  to  our 
author  to  appeal  to  the  Greeks,  if  they 
were  fuch  grofs  blunderers  as  he  repre- 
fents  them  ?     And  could  he  hope,    by 
their   authority,    to  eftablifh   a  fyftem, 
which,  by  his  own  confeffion,  was  op- 
pofite   to   that    which    they   efpoufed  ? 
Why,  it  feems,  they  did  not  know  the  pur 
port  of  their  own  intelligence1 ;  and  he  un 
dertakes  to  deduce  from  their  own  hi/iories 
many   truths  with   which  they  were  totally 
unacquainted {.    That  Mr.  Bryant  has  gi 
ven  proofs  of  a  fagacity  as  uncommon  as 
his    erudition,  and  by  the   aid  of  both 
thrown  new  light  upon  ancient  writers, 
and  in  fome  inftances  difcovered  their  re 
al  meaning  which   had  efcaped  the  ob~ 
fervation  of  others,  it  is  but  juftice  to 
him  to  acknowledge.     Neverthelefs,  the 
attempt  to  deduce,  from  authors,  truths 
with  which  they  themfelves  were  totally 

k  Preface,  p.  ix.  xvi.  &  p.  143.  .      ]  Preface,  p.  ix. 

unacquainted, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  339 
unacquainted,  and  to  difcover  meanings 
oppofite  to  thofe  which  they  are  acknow 
ledged  really  to  have  had,  was  too  hazar 
dous  an  undertaking,  and  in  which  the 
imagination  alone  could  properly  engage. 
After  all,  had  Mr.  Bryant,  upon  any 
grounds  whatever,  eftablifhed  his  main 
point  with  refpect  to  the  heathen  gods, 
viz.  that  they  were  all  titles  of  the  fun, 
or  refolvable  into  that  one  deity m  3  he 
*  could  not  prove  from  hence,  that  the 
Heathens  did  not,  in  their  own  concep 
tion,  worfhip  a  deified  mortal.  He  fays, 
the  Cuthites,  or  Amonians,  and  the  col 
lateral  branches  of  the  family,  having 
raifed  Ham  to  a  divinity,  worfiipped  him 
as  the  fun" ',  the  deity  which  the  Amonians 
adored9.  Now  the  Heathens,  in  worftiip- 
ping  the  fun  under  this  idea  of  it,  may 
be  confidered  as  worfhipping  a  human 
fpirit. 

m  V.  i.  p.  305,  306,  309.     Preface,  p.  xv. 

n  Preface,  p.  vii.  Ham  was  by  his  pofterity  eftcemed  the 
fun,  V.i.  p.  244.  &p.  239,  257.  He  makes  the  ora 
cle  of  Ham  and  the  fun  to  be  the  fame,  p.  239,  243, 
248,  258,  2^9,  273.  °  Ib.  p.  xv. 

Z  2  In 


340         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

In  juftice  to   our  learned  author,  as* 
well  as  to  our  fubjefl,  I  cannot  conclude 
without  taking  notice,  that,  though  he 
argues  againft   the    opinion  which  the 
Heathens  entertained  of  their  own  gods, 
as  being  deified  mortals,  yet  he  himfelf 
maintains,  that  theworjhip  of  Ham  'was  in 
troduced  by  the  Amonians  in  Phrygia  and  A- 
fa  Minor*:  that  the  Cuthites,  wherever  they 
came.,  were  looked  up  to  as  a  fuperior  order 
of  beings  -,  and  hence  were  ftiled  heroes  and 
demons1 :  and  that  the  nations  of  the  eaft  ac 
knowledged  originally  but  one  deity,  the  fun  ; 
but,  when  they  came  to  give  the  titles  ofO- 
riis,  OJiris,  and  Cham,  to  feme  of  the  heads 
of  their  family ,  they  too  in  time  were  looked 
up  to  as  gods,  and  federally  wor flipped  as  the 
fun*.  He  affirms8,  By  thefe  terms,  the  ma 
nes  and  lares,    are  fignified  dii  Arkitce, 
who  were  no  other  than  their  Arkite  ancef- 
fors,    the    perfons    preferred  in   the   ark. 
Speaking  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  he 


V,  i.  p.  273,  274.  i  Preface,  p.  vii. 

V.i.  p.  306.  •  V.  2.  p.  456. 


fay?; 


In  the  ancient  heathen  World.       341 

fays*,  The  whole  of  their  worjhip  was  confi 
ned  to  a  few  deified  men,  thefe  lares,  manes  y 
dcemones,  of  whom  we  have  been  treat 
ing.  They  were  no  other  than  their  Arkite 
anceftors,  the  Baalim  of  the  Scriptures :  to 
thefe  they  offered,  and  to  thefe  they  made 
their  vows.  In  more  general  terms,  he 
pofitively  afferts,  The  whole  religion  of  the 
ancients  confified  in  the  worjhip  of  demons : 
and  to  thofe  perjbnages  their  theology  continu* 
ally  refers.  They  were,  like  the  manes  and 
lares  of  the  Romans,  fuppofed  to  be  the  foul$ 
of  men  deceafed*. 

Thefe  conceffions,  at  the  fame  time 
that  they  difcover  Mr.  Bryant's  candour, 
feem  to  me  fully  to  confirm  the  opinion 
of  the  heathen  gods  which  I  have  been 
attempting  to  eftablifh, 

IV.  Let  us  proceed  to  conflder  the  tef- 
timony  of  the  Chriftian  FATHERS  to 
the  general  worfhip  of  dead  men  in  the 
ancient  heathen  nations. 

*    V.  2.    p.  459.  »   V.  2.    p.  280. 

Z  3  Many 


Worfoip  of  bum  an  Spirits 

Many  teftimonies  of  the  Fathers,  to 
the  general  worfhip  of  dead  men  amongft 
the  Heathens,  were  produced  in  a  for 
mer  publication^  Thefe  learned  writers 
have  alfo  been  occafionally  appealed  to, 
in  the  preceding  flieets,  in  order  to  con 
firm  fome  particular  articles;  though 
my  principal  defign  has  hitherto  been  to 
eftablifh  the  point  in  queftion  by  the  au 
thority  of  the  Heathens  themfelves. 

It  could  anfwer  no  end  farther  to 
multiply  citations  from  the  Fathers, 
merely  to  fhew  that  they  thought  the 
gods  of  the  Gentiles  were  deified  mor 
tals  :  for  this,  I  apprehend,  is  univer- 
fally  admitted  by  learned  men.  Mr. 
Bryant x,  in  particular,  allows,  <c  that 
cc  this  was  the  opinion  of  Clemens,  Eu- 
"  febius,  Cyril,  Tertullian,  Athenago- 
cc  ras,  Epiphanius,  La£tantius,  Arno- 
<c  bius,  Julius  Firmicus,  and  many  o- 
<c  thers."  Some  of  thofe  here  omitted  by 
Mr.  Bryant  were  taken  notice  of  in  the  Dif- 

v  DiiTert.  on  Mir.  p.  212.         x  Mythol.I.  p.  455. 

fertation 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      343 

fertation  on  Miracles 7 ;  particularly  Cy 
prian,  Minucius  Felix,  and  St.  Auftin. 
But  our  learned  author*  affirms,  cc  that 
<c  the  whole  of  their  argument  turns  up- 
*'  on  this  point,  the  conceffions  of  the 
<c  Gentiles.  The  more  early  writers 
<c  of  the  church  were  not  making  a  ftri6l 
xc  chronological  enquiry,  buf  were  la-- 
"  bouring  to  convert  the  Heathen. 
<c  They  therefore  argue  with  them  upon 
ic  their  own  principles,  and  confute 
"  them  from  their  own  teftimony." 
fc  It  matters  not  whether  the  notion/' 
viz.  of  the  Heathens,  who  thought  their 
gods  had  been  men,  <c  were  true;  the 
cc  Fathers  fairly  make  ufe  of  it.  They 
cc  avail  themfelves  of  thefe  conceffions, 
cc  and  prove  from  them  the  abfurdity 
Ff  of  the  Gentile  worfhip,  and  the  in- 
fc  confiftency  of  their  opinions." 

Thefe  obfervations,  being  fpecious  in 
themfelves,  and  fupported  by  fo  great  an 
authority  as  Mr.  Bryant,  deferve  to  be 

y  P.  212,  213.  *  MythoL  I.  p.  455. 

Z  4  maturely 


344          Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

maturely  examined.  It  is  natural  to  fup- 
pofe  that  the  Fathers  would  avail  them- 
felves  of  the  conceffions  of  the  Heathens 
on  the  fubjeft  before  us  ;  but  the  whole 
of  their  argument  does  not,  to  my  ap- 
prehenfion,  turn  upon  this  point.  They 
take  upon  themfelves  to  affirm  it  as  a 
faft,  that  the  heathen  gods  had  been 
men  j  and  they  eftablifh  the  faft  by 
convincing  evidence. 

i  .  They  affirm  the  fa6t  in  the  ftrongeft 
terms.  Eufebius,  who  was  a  perfeft 
matter  of  antiquity,  maintains,  that,  in 
the  early  ages,  thofe,  who  excelled  o- 
thers  in  wifdom  and  power,  or  had  emi 
nently  benefited  mankind,  were  pro 
claimed  gods,  both  while  living  and  after 
their  deaths2.  He  declares  he  had  pro 
ved,  by  unqueftionable  teftimonies,  that 
the  gods,  ivor/hippcd  by  all  people  ,  both  in 
cities  and  villages,  were  the  ghojls  and  ima^ 


Praep.  Ev.  1.2.  0.5.  p.  70.  D 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      345 

ges  of  dead  men*.  And  he  aflerts,  that 
Sanchoniathon  in, particular  had  fhewn, 
that  dead  men  and  women,  covered  with  all 
manner  of  vices  ^  were  advanced  to  the  rank 
of  gods  ;  and  that  thefe  were  the  very  fame 
gods  as  thofe  univ  erf  ally  worjhipped  in  all  ci 
ties  and  countries  in  his  time*.  Arnobius, 
after  particularly  enumerating  feveral  de 
ities  who  had  been  men,  pofitively  af- 
ferts,  c<  that  all  the  gods  they  had  in 
<v  their  temples  were  fuchc".  filenames 
of  the  gods  whom  you  prof efs  to  worjhip^  fays 
Theophilus  Antiochenus  to  Autolycus, 
are  the  names  of  dead  men* .  Laftantius,  as 


Id.  ib.  A 


yt 

vvv    Ssa?    Tra^a    rot?  Tracrt  ysvo^<r^tv^  xara  re  ra; 

x*»  r«5  %w§af.     Id.  1.  i.  c.p.  p,  31.  C.     SeeDemonft. 

Evang.  1.  8.  p.  364.  &  Vit.  Conilantini  paffim. 

c  Vos  hominem  nullum  colitis  natum  ?  non  uijum  et 
alium  f  non  innumeros  alios  ?  quinimo  non  omnes,  quos 
jam  templis  habetis  veflris,  mortalium  fuftuliftis  ex  nu- 
niero,  et  coelp  fideiibufque  donaftis  ?  Adv.  Gentes, 


.  21. 


Theophyl.   ad  Autolyc.    1.  i.  c.  14. 
p.  36.     Hamburg.  1724. 

we 


346         Worfolp  of  human  Spirits 

we  have  feen,  adopted  thefyftem  of 
hemerus,  which  reprefented  all  the  hea 
then  gods  as  mere  mortals6.  St.  Auftiu 
Hkewife  has  given  his  fan6tion  to  that 
fyftem,  and  affirms  that  it  was  founded 
upon  hiftorical  evidencef.  He  maintains^ 
that  even  the  greater  gods  had  been  meng; 
and  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find,  in 
all  the  writings  of  the  Heathens,  any 
one  god  of  a  different  clafs\  Tertullian1 
and  Minucius  Felix  aflert,  that  all  their 
gods,  or  the  whole  fw  arm  of  heathen  deities , 
'were  men,  not  excepting  the  chief  of  all, 
Jupiter  and  Saturn,  before  whom  they 
had  no  godsk.  There  were  no  kings,  fays 

Laftantius, 

*  La&ant.  Divin.  JnfUtut.  1.  i.  c.  14.  cited  above^ 
p.  222.  Seealfoc.  n.  p.  49.  ecL  Dufrefnoy. 

f  Auguft.  de  Civ.  Dei,  1.  6.  c.  7.  cited  above,  p.  222, 

s  Ib.  1.  8.  c.  5.  cited  above,  p.  257. 

h  Id.  ib.  1.  8.  c.  26.  cited  above,  p.  257. 

5  Omnes  iflos  deos  veftros  homines  fuifle.  Tertullian . 
Apol.  c.  10.  p.  ii. 

yk  Sa'turnum  enim  principem  hujus  generis  et  exami- 
nis  omnes  fcriptores  vetuflatis,  Graeci  Romanique,  ho- 
minejn  prodiderui^t.  —  Saturnus  Creta  profugus,  &c«, 

Minucias 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      347 

Laftantius,  before  Saturn  or  Uranus1; 
and,  royalty  being  the  ground  of  deifi 
cation1,  thefe  princes  came  to  be  regard 
ed  as  themoft  ancient  divinities. 

2.  At  the  fame  time  that  the  Fathers 
aflert,  in  general  terms,  the  humanity 
of  all  the  heathen  gods,  they  eftablifh  it 
by  arguments  of  great  weight,  fuch  as 
have  convinced  others  of  the  truth 
of  their  opinion,  and  which  probably 
therefore  produced  the  fame  effeft  upon 
themfelves.  Many  of  them  have  been 
touched  upon  in  the  preceding  fheets; 
others  will  come  under  examination  in 
the  next  feftion  :  and  therefore,  to  a- 
void  repetition,  I  fhall  barely  mention 
them  in  this  place,  without  enquiring 
into  their  force.  Nor  fhall  I  attempt  to 

4 

Minucius  Felix,  c.  22.  p.  113,  114.  cd.  Davif. — 
Ante  Saturnum  deus  penes  vos  nemo  eft.  Tertullian. 
Apol.  c.  10.  cited  at  large  above,  p.  265.  —  See  alfo 
Arnobius,  p.  92,  93*  cited  above,  p.  252. 

\  Laclant.  1.  i.  c.  15. 

make 


348         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

make  diftinft  mention  of  all  their  argu 
ments,  but  only  touch  upon  fome  of  the 
principal. 

They  appeal  to  ancient  tradition  and 
all  the  authentic  records  of  pagan  anti 
quity  m ;  to  the  diftinft  teftimonies  of 
their  poets  and  their  hiftorians";  to  the 
difcovery  of  the  earthly  origin  of  the 
gods  in  the  myfteries  j  and  to  the  report 
of  thofe  who  had  divulged  this  fecret  to 
the  world p.  "  The  genealogies  of  your 

m  Sienim  forte  vos  fugit,  fortis  cos  humanae,  et  con- 
ditionis  fuiffe  communis ;  replicate  antiquiflimas  lite- 
ras,  et  eorum  fcripta  percurrite,  qui  vetuftati  vicini, 
fine  ullis  afientationibus  cunfta  veritate  in  liqiujia  pro- 
diderunt.  Arnobius,  p.  21  •  —  Non  attendant  in  om 
nibus  literis  paganorum,  &c,  Auguil.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8, 
c.  26.  cited  above,  p.  257. 

*  Quod  ft  quis  dubitet,  res  eorum  geflas,  et  fadla, 
confideret :  quae  univerfa  turn  poetas,  turn  hiftorici  ve- 
teres,  prodiderunt.  Ladant.  1.  I.  c.  8.  p.  35. 

P  Particularly  Leo,  the  Egyptian  prieft.  Minuc. 
Felix,  p.  121,  122.  Cyprian,  de  Idol.  Vanit.  p.  12. 
ed.  Fell.  Awguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  5,  27. 

"  gods", 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World. 

<c  godsq",  faid  the  Fathers  in  their  ad- 
drefles  to  the  Heathens,  "  and  their 
"  marriages,  their  adulteries,  and  other 
<c  crimes',  point  out  their  participation 
<c  of  human  nature.  They  were  kings 
"  who  were  indebted  for  their  divinity 
"  to  the  adulation  of  their  fubjects*. 
"  Their  fathers  and  mothers,  their 
"  country,  their  tribe  and  kindred, 
<c  their  exploits  and  various  fortunes, 

9  Theophilus  Ant.  ad  Autolyc.  1.  2.  p.  72.  is 
thus  rendered  by  Wolfius.  Etenim  dum  genealogias 
eorum  percurritis,  pro  hominibus  eos  habetis  ;  paulo 
poft  vero  deos  appeliatis,  et  colitis,  nee  recogitantes, 
neqae  intelligentes,  eos  tales  e/Te,  quales  natos  legitis, 
Tatian  (Orat.  ad  Grscos,  c.  36.  p.  79.  ed.  Worth) 
argues  in  the  fame  manner.  Ttvi<r\v  av  Xtyirrt  6twv,  xat 


r  Tatian.  ubi  fupra,  p.  30,  31.  Tertullian,  after 
enumerating  the  crimes  imputed  to  the  gods  by  their 
votaries,  adds,  At  quin  ut  illos  homines  fuifle  non 
poffitis  negare,  etiam  ifhe  nots  accedunt.  Apol.  c.  1 1 . 

p.  12. 

s  Quomodo  ergo,  inquiet  aliquis,  dii  crediti  funt? 
Nimirum  quia  reges  maximi  ac  potentiffimi  fuerint. 
Ladant.  1.  i.  c.  8.  p.  35.  In  c.  15.  he  handles  the 
fubjedl  more  largely.  Compare  Cyprian  de  Idol.  Va- 
nitat.  init.  &  Minucius  Felix,  c.  29.  p.  147,  148. 


35°         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

"  are  all  on  record'.     It  is  well  knowri 

<c  in  what  cities  they  were  born,    and 

"  where    they    were     buried u.       And, 

"  if  farther  proofs  of  their  humanity 

"  are  defired,  we  appeal  to  the  viands w 

"  with  which  your  gods  are  fupplied,  to 

"  the  images51  by  which  they  are  repre- 

<c  fented,  and  to  the  temples7  in  which 

£C  their  remains  are  depofited.     But  the 

<c  fact  itfdf,  that  all  thofe  whom  you 

1  See  above,  note  n,  Auguft.  Civ.  D.  1.  S.  c.  27. 
and  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  10.  p.  n.  ed.  Pagalt.  I 
fhall  fet  down  the  words  of  Arnobius,  p.  21.  Jani 
profeclo  difcetis,  quibus  fmguli  patribus.  quibus  ma- 
tribus,  fuerint  procreati,  qua  in  nati  regione,  qu-a 
gente,  quae  fecerint,  egerint,  pertulerint,  aditarint, 
quas  in  rebus  obeundis  adverforum  fenferint,  fecun- 
dantiumque  fortunas. 

u  The  heathen  records  teftified  to  his  time,  fays 
Tertullian,  (Apol.  c.  10.  p.  11.)  et  civitatibus  in  qui 
bus  nati  funt ;  et  regionibus  in  quibus  aliquid  operati 
vefligia  reliquerunt,  in  quibus  etiam  fepuld  demon- 
ftrantur*  See  Recogn.  S.  dementis,  1.  10.  c.  23,  24. 
p.  594.  ap.  Patres  Ajx>ft.  V.  I.  ed.  Clerici. 

w  Sin  autem  fcientes  uteris  effe  g^ilatos,  et  frugibus 
eos  viftita(Te  terrenis.  Arnob.  p.  21.  See  the  next 
feftion  under  the  article  of  ^vorjhip. 

x  See  the  next  feftion, 'article  V.       ?  Ib.  article  II. 

£t    HOW 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  3  r  i 
"  now  wbrlhip  as  gods  had  once  been 
"  men,  is  fo  notorious  that  you 
<c  cannot  deny  it2.  It  is  becaufe  you 
cc  cannot  deny  that  the  objects  of  your 
cc  worfhip  had  been  men,  that  you  af- 
"•  firm  them  to  be  now  advanced  to  the 
"  rank  of  gods a.  Nor  have  you  any  o- 
"  ther  reafon,  for  flying  to  '  a  phyfical 
"  explication  of  the  fables,  than  your 
"  being  afhamed  of  the  literal  hiltoryb". 
This  is  the  natural  language  of  per- 
fons  fully  perfuaded  of  the  truth  of  what 
they  faid.  Under  this  ftrong  perfuafion, 

2  Provocamus  a  vobis  ad  confcientiam  veitram.  Ilia 
nosjudicet,  ilia  nosdamnet,  fi  poterit  negare  omnes  iftos 
deos  veftros  homines  fuifle.  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  10. 
p.  ii. 

*  Et  quoniam  ficut  illos  homines  fuifFe  non  audetb 
denegare,  ita  poft  mortem  deos  factos  inflituiftis  afleve- 
rare.  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  n.  p.  11. 

b  Ipfa  quoque  vulgaris  fuperflitio  communis  idoloh- 
trise,  cum  in  fimulacris  de  nominibus  et  fabulis  \reterum 
•mortuorum  pudet,  ad  interpretationem  naturalium  re- 
.fugit,  etdedecus  fuum  ingenio  adumbrat.  Tertullian, 
adv.  Marcion.  1.  i.  p.  371,  372.  ed.  Rigalt.  1675.  — 
Ut  fcriptorum  tantam  defendatis  audaciam,  allegorias 
res  illas,  et  naturalis  fcientia?  mentimini  ejte  doctrinas. 
Arnobius,  p.  150. 

they 


352         Wcrjlnp  of  human  Spirits 

they  openly  infult  the  public  religiori 
of  their  country,  and  juftify  their  non 
conformity  to  it  on  account  of  it's  pre- 
fcribing  the  worfliip  of  the  dead.  With 
great  eloquence  and  ftrength  of  reafon- 
ing  do  they  expofe  the  abfurdity  of  that 
worfhip,  and  the  folly  and  arrogance 
of  pretending,  by  certain  ceremonies,  to 
convert  mortal  men  into  immortal  gods, 
and  to  advance  them  to  celeftial  dignity  and 
powerc.  Thefe  reproaches,  had  they  not 
been  well  founded,  would  have  been  re 
ceived  with  all  the  contempt  they  defer- 
ved  ;  and  thofe,  who  urged  them  with  fo 
much  confidence  and  triumph,  would 
have  appeared  ridiculous  in  the  eyes 
of  all  the  world.  But  their  reafonings  on 
this  fubjeft  had  a  very  different  effeft, 
and  contributed  greatly  to  the  downfal 
of  pagan  idolatry. 

The  opinion  and  teftimony  of  the  Fa 
thers,  under  the  foregoing  circumftan- 
ces,  feem  to  me  to  be  of  great  weight. 

*  SeeLa&ant.  1.  i.  c.  15.  p.  69,  70.  ed.  Dufrefnoy. 

They 


in  the  ancient  heathen  Wvrld.      353 

They  were  bred  up  in  the  heathen  reli 
gion,  or  lived  in  the  times  when  it 
flourished  ;  and  therefore  were  as  com 
petent  judges  of  it  as  the  Heathens 
themfelves  could  be.  After  the  moft  cri-^ 
tical  examination  of  it,  they  confidently 
pronounced  the  objefts  of  national  wor- 
fhip  to  be  human  fpirits.  They  fupport- 
ed  this  opinion  by  arguments  more  than 
by  the  authority  or  conceflions  of  the 
Heathens.  And,  fo  cleat*  and  cogerlt 
were  their  reafonings,  that  idolaters  de- 
ferted  the  worfhip  of  their  falfe  gods, 
and  adored  only  the  creator  of  heaven 
and  earth. 

A  late  writer,  who  would  feem  to  be 

very  jealous  of  the  credit  of  the  Fathers*, 

A  a  knew 

d  In  the  Efiay  on  the  Demoniacs,  p.  53,  54,  in  the 
note,  after  citing  from  Jerome,  in  his  own  words,  a 
paflage,  which  may  be  thus  tran Hated  :  Becaufe  they 
(the  Fathers)  arefomethnes  compelled  to  fpeak,  NOT  WHAT 
THEY  THINK,  but  what  necejjity  requires,  they  oppofe 
nvhat  the  Gentiles  advance  :  I  immediately  added,  When~ 
ever  they  had  an  end  to  ferve,  no  caution  can  be  too  great  in 
following  them.  This  oblervation  is  cenfured  by  Mr. 
Fell,  (Demoniacs,  p.  156.)  and  feems  to  have  been  the 

principal 


354         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

knew   very  little  what  pains  he  was  ta 
king  to  deftroy  it.     He  not  only  oppofes 

their 

principal  ground  on  which  he  afks,  p.  160,  "  Is  not  this 
"  fuch  an  attack  upon  the  common  honefty  of  man- 
"  kind  — —  as  naturally  deftroys  the  faith  of  all 
"  hiftory,  while  it  leads  to  univerfal  fcepticifm  r"  Here 
it  is  obvious  to  remark,  i.  That  the  character  which  is 
given  the  Fathers  by  Jerome,  who  was  himfelf  one  of* 
them,  is  confirmed  by  the  teftimony  of  feveral  others ; 
as  the  reader  may  find  by  confulting  Daille,  or  a  late 
learned  publication  (p.  83,  &c.)  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hen 
ry  Taylor,  which  contains  many  valuable  reflections  on 
the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  ift  volume  of  Mr.  Gib- 
bons's  Hiftory.  2.  The  obfervation  which  Mr.  Fell 
condemns  is  no  more  than  a  juft  inference  from  that  cha- 
rafter  which  Jerome,  a  very  competent  and  impartial 
judge,  had  given  the  Fathers.  Neverthelefs  Mr.  Fell 
treats  it  as  a  groundlefs  calumny  ;  nor  could  it  be  confi- 
dered  in  any  other  light  by  an  unlearned  reader ;  for 
our  author  has  cited  the  obfervation  without  taking  any 
notice  of  Jerome,  the  authority  upon  which  it  was 
founded.  The  gentleman  allures  us,  in  his  title-page, 
that  truth  was  his  only  object  ;  otherwife  I  mould  have 
thought,  that,  on  this  as  on  almoft  all  other  occafions, 
obloquy  had  been  no  fmall  part  of  hisdefign.  Can  he 
point  out  the  place  where  I  have  faid,  what  he  (in  p. 
156)  exprefsly  reprefents  me  as  faying,  "  That  no  flrefs 
"  is  to  be  laid  on  their  (the  Fathers)  general  conduct?" 
The  gentleman  often  honours  me  with  fuch  additions- 
3,  If  the  obfervation  complained  of  deftroys  ibe faith  of 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      355 

their  opinion^  but  labours  to  overturn 
their  teftimony.  They  affirm  it  as  a  faff, 
which  none  could  controvert,  that  the 
heathen  gods  had  been  men.  Mr.  Fell, 
on  the  contrary,  maintains6,  that  "all  the 

all  hiftory,  St.  Jerome  alone  (vvhofe  language  fully  war 
rants  it,  but  whom  our  author  has  kept  out  of  fight) 
is  the  perfon  on  whom  the  blame  mould  be  laid.  The 
conduct  of  the  Fathers  is  certainly  liable  to  juftcenfure, 
Whether  the  character  they  give  of  themfelves  be  true  or 
falfe.  If  it  be  true,  who  can  juftifythem?  If  it  be 
falfe,  (which  it  would  be  abfurd  to  fuppofe,)  you  will  find 
it  neceffary  in  this  inftanceto  difbelieve  them.  But  this 
by  no  means  deftroys  the  faith  of  all  hiftory*  The  de 
ceptions  to  which  we  are  liable  are  a  ground  of  caution* 
tLQtniuniverfalfcepttcif?n.  Human  teftimony,  by  which 
men  determine  concerning  the  lives  and  properties  of  o- 
thers  in  courts  of  judicature,  is,  under  proper  circumftan- 
ces,  a  fure  ground  of  dependence.  The  teftimony  of  the 
Fathers  in  particular,  on  every  point  of  real  importance 
to  Chriftianity,  is,  I  apprehend,  confirmed  by  fuch  cir- 
cumftantial  evidence  as  prevents  the  very  pcffibility  of 
deception.  4.  The  reafons  I  afligned  for  rejecting  the 
profefled  opinion  of  fome  of  the  Fathers,  concerning  the 
faffkff*nt  demons,  (Eflay  on  Demoniacs,  p.  49-56,  and 
Introduction,  p.  7,  8.)  do  not  at  all  holdin  the  cafe  of 
the  teftimony  they  bear  to  the  fatt  now  before  us,  the 
human  origin  of  the  heathen  gods, 
*  P.  uo. 

A,  a  2  world 


356  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
world  knew  they  had  never  been  men/* 
If  this  be  true,  the  Fathers  are  chargea 
ble,  not  with  ignorance  or  error,  but 
with  wilful  falfehood.  I  do  not  fay  the 
gentleman  really  defigned  to  advance  fo 
fevere  a  charge  againft  them.  It  does  not 
appear,  from  his  writings,  that  he  had 
any  acquaintance  with  their  fentiments 
on  the  fubjeft  before  us,  or  that  he  had 
fo  much  as  read  the  extrafts  from  them 
in  the  Diflertation  which  he  undertook 
to  anfwer.  At  leaft,  he  has  taken  no  no 
tice  of  thofe  extracts ;  and  therefore, 
if  he  did  read  them,  he  did  not  judge 
them  worthy  of  a  reply.  His  filence 
muft  be  confidered  as  expreffive  either 
of  his  ignorance  of  the  Fathers,  or  of  his 
fovereign  contempt  of  them  -,  unlefs  we 
refolve  it  into  fome  prudential  confidera- 
tion. 

I  have  now  diftinclly  examined  the 
fentiments  of  the  Gentiles  and  of  the 
early  Chriftians  concerning  the  heathen 
gods ;  and  have  fhewn  that  they  both  a- 
gree  in  affirming  their  earthly  origin.  The 

Fathers, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       357 

Fathers,  in  particular,  do  often  aflfert, 
in  general  terms,  and  without  making 
any  exceptions,  that  all  the  pagan  deities 
had  once  been  men.  Neverthelefs,  a  late 
writer  imagined f,  that  cc  no  opinion 
<c  could  be  more  erroneous  than  this/' 
I  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  judge,  whether 
the  propofition  here  condemned  be  not, 
under  a  few  obvious  reftri6lions,  confir 
med  by  the  cleareft  and  ftrongeft  tefti- 

monies. But  we  fhall  advance  one 

flep  farther  under  the  next  feftion. 

SECT.     II. 

General  proof }  of  the  worfoip  of  human  (pi- 
rits,  amongst  the  ancient  Heathens,,  drawn 
from  FACTS. 

VERY  one  muft  have  obferved, 
that  the  teftimony  of  competent 
and  honeft  witneffes,  which  in  itfelf  is  a 
reafonable  ground  of  dependence,  may 
be  confirmed  by  fuch  circumftantial  evi- 

?  Mr.  Fell.     See  above,  p.  12. 

A  a  3  dence 


3  5  8         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

dence  as  to  remove  every  degree  of  doubt 
or  fufpicion.  This  obfervation  was  never 
more  applicable  than  to  the  cafe  before  us. 
The  teftimonies  to  the  worfhip  of  human 
fpirits  in  particular  nations,  and  to  it's  ge 
neral  prevalence,  hitherto  produced,  re 
ceive  the  ftrongeft  confirmation  fromfa6ls 
and  circumftances  which  cannot  be  con 
troverted  with  any  colour  of  reafon ;  and 
yet  cannot  be  accounted  for  but  upon 
the  fuppofition  of  the  truth  of  thofe  tef 
timonies.  This  argument  was  urged  in  a 
former  publication8,  (though  overlooked 
by  the  gentleman  who  wrote  againft  it ;) 
but  it  well  deferves  a  larger  illuftration 
than  was  confiftent  with  the  occafion  on 
which  it  was  there  introduced. 

I.  I  fhall  begin  with  taking  notice,  that 
divine  honours  were  paid  to  the  dead, 
according  to  their  different  ranks  and 
characters  when  living,  at  all  the  SE 
PULCHRES  of  the  Heathens. 

£  DifTertat.  on  Mir.  p.  193. 

There 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       359 

There  has  already  been  occafion  to  ob- 
ferveh,  that  facrifices  and  libations  were 
offered  in  honour  of  all  the  dead  at  the 
places  of  their  interment.  Children  were 
compelled  by  law  to  perform  thefe  rites 
to  their  parents ;  and,  where  there  were 
no  children,  heirs  were  laid  under  the 
fame  obligation  to  do  it1. 

No  wonder,  then,  that  religious  ho 
nours  fhould  be  paid  to  perfons  diftin- 
guifhed  by  their  rank  or  merit.  Alexan 
der  and  Hephaeftion  offered  facrifices  at 
the  tombs  of  Achilles  and  the  Trojan 
heroes  upon  the  plains  of  Troyk. 

The  tombs  of  the  ancients  were  fome- 
times  built  of  ft  one,  and  called  Karns1  -, 
but  were  more  commonly  conical  mounds 
of  earth,  well  known  here  in  England 
by  the  name  of  barrows,  which  were  rai- 

h  Above,  p.  249,  270. 

»  Petit.  Leg.  Attic.  p.6oi. 

k  Arrian.  Exped.  Alex.  1.  I.  c.  n.  p.  25.  ed.  Gro- 
TIOV.  Q^Curt.  1.  2.  c.  4.  Freinfhem.  Supplem.  torn. 
j.  p.  27.  ed.  Snakenburg. 

1  Borlafe,  Antiq.  of  Cornwal,  p.  212. 

A  a  4  fed 


360         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

fed  over  the  dead  body,  or,  in  cafe  of  it's 
being  burned,  over  the  bones  and  aflies. 
Thefe  tumuli^  or  fepulchral  mounds, 
were  fometimes  built  in  the  fhape  of  al 
tars1",  undoubtedly  that  they  might  be  u- 
fed  as  fuch,  as  they  alfo  often  were  when 
not  made  in  this  particular  ftiape". 

But,  in  moft  cafes,  altars,  diftinft 
from  the  facred  mounds,  were  raifed 
near  them  for  the  purpofe  of  worfhip, 
The  Trojans  erefted  to  Polydore  not 
only  a  large  tomb  or  mound  of  earth, 
but  altars  likewife,  and  facrificed  to  his 
manes0.  Andromache  alfo  raifed  a  va 
cant  tomb,  and  confecrated  two  altars, 
toHe6lorp. 

Amongft  perfons  elevated  above  the 
level  of  the  vulgar  there  was  a  great  dif- 
tinftion  made,  not  only  with  refpeft  to 


m  The  fepulchre  of  Themiftocles  was  g^os^s;,  ac 
cording  to  the  authors  cited  by  Plutarch,  Vit.  Themiil. 
p.  128.  E. 

n  See  Borlafe,  p.  222. 

c  Virg.  JEn.  III.  62.  cited  above,  p.  328,  in  note  !. 

f  Id.  ib«  v,  303,  cited  above,  p.  32^,  in  note  k. 

the 


in  tbj  ancient  heathen  World.  361 
the  magnificence  of  their  fepulchres,  but 
alfo  in  regard  to  the  worfhip  that  was 
paid  them.  Herodotus  relates  of  the  A- 
mathufians,  that  they  were  admoniftied 
by  an  oracle,  to  facrlfice  annually  to  Onejilus 
as  to  a  hero  q.  To  Philippus,  of  Crotona, 
the  Egiftans  erected  the  monument  of  a  hero 
upon  his  tomb,  and  propitiated  him  withfa- 
crifaesr.  When  heroes  were  exalted  to  the 
rank  of  gods,  they  were  ftill  more  ho 
nourably  diftinguifhed.  To  what  has 
been  already9  faid  upon  this  fubje&I  here 
add,  that  Caftor  and  Pollux  received  e- 
qual  honours  with  the  gods*:  which  implies 
that  their  honours  were  fuperior  to  thofe 
paid  to  heroes.  The  taphosy  or  tomby  of 
Jupiter,  built  by  the  Magnefians,  who 
thought  he  was  buried  in  their  country, 
was  a  flrufture  worthy  of  admiration"  ; 
and  every  one  knows  he  was  the  fupreme 
objeft  of  religious  worlhip  amongft  the 
feveral  nations  of  Greece. 

^   OvEcriAetf    de   -Jvuvt   v$  »)gwV,   avac,   Trav   sror«        Plerodot. 

1.5.  c.  114. 


Toy    ra^oy    ctwtov 

Id.  ib.  c.  47.  •  P.  172-176. 

Ti/*a?  lo-oSsa?  JCT^OV.     Plutarchi  Thcfeus,   16.  A. 
|wv.     Paufanine  Ccrinthiaca^  p.  161. 

Princes 


362         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

Princes  and  great  commanders  had 
their  iepulchres  dignified  by  a  cromlech*, 
which  was  compofed  of  a  large  flat  ftone, 
in  or  near  a  horizontal  petition,  fupported 
by  ereft  ftone;  w.  The  word  denotes* 
confecratedftonf  or  t aisle.  The  repafts  pro 
vided  for  the  dead  (confifting  commonly  of 
vegetables,  bread,  ana  eggs)  were  called 
fdicerni  a  ^flippers  ufona^cne.The&ftonQ- 
tableswere  called  altars7,  not  merely  on  ac 
count  of  their  form,  as  forne  fuppofe,  but 
alfo  on  account  of  their  ufe  ;  the  fupper 
placed  upon  them  being  an  offering  to  the 
dii  manes.  A  learned  writer  allows, 
that  the  places  round  about  them  were 
the  fcenes  of  the  parentalia,  or  where  the 
dead  were  worfhippedV  Now,  as  this 
worfliip  confifted,  in  part,  in  the  celebra 
tion  of  a  feaft,  it  is  natural  to  fuppofe, 
that  the  cromlech  was  the  table  or  altar 
on  which  was  laid  that  part  of  it  which 
was  defigned  for  the  ufe  of  the  departed. 

A 

*  Borlafe,  p,  229.  w  Id.  p.  223. 

x  m^  tain.     Rowland,  p.  47,  214.    Borlafe,  p.  225. 
T  Borlafe,  p.  228- 

z  Wormius,  p.   8.  fpeaking  of  the  cromlech,  fays, 
Maxima  ex  parte  fepulchro  impofita  effe  folet,  eo  fine, 

ut 


In  the  ancient  heathen  World.  363 
A  very  learned  writer  contends,  that 
cromlechs  and  barrows  were  not  places 
where  the  gods  were  buried,  but  only 
where  they  were  worshipped.  When 
fpeaking  of  thofe  mounds,  in  Greece, 
that  were  fenced  round  with  a  border 
of  ftone-work,  upon  the  top  of  which  a 
large  ftone  was  placed,  he  faysa,  They  were 
looked  upon  as  receptacles  of  the  dead:  but  were 
high  altars^  with  their  f acred  TspBvy,  which 
had  been  ereffed  for  divine  worfoip  in  the 
moft  early  times.  The  roc(poiy  (taphoi,)  he 
affirms",  were  not  tombs  ^  but  conical  mounds 
of  earthy  on  which.,  in  the  firft  ages,  offer 
ings  were  made  by  fire.  He  reprefents  the 
facred  tupha  of  the  Perfians  as  being  fet 
apart  as  puratheia,  for  the  celebration  of  the 
rites  of  this  element*.  The  word  (roLtyoq)  ta- 
phos  is  fometimes  ufed,  in  a  large  fenfe,  for 
a  hillock-,  but  it  was,  fays  Mr.  Bryant,  in 
terpreted  by  the  Greeks  a  tomb".  And,  a- 
dopting  it  in  this  limited  fenfe, <c  they  for- 

ut  ibidem  in  memofiam  defunct!  quotannis  facra  pera- 
gantur.     See  Borlafe,  p.  227,  229,  230. 

a  Bryant,  Mythol.  v.  i.  p.  466.  b  P.  456. 

f  P.  467.  -p.  453,  45I. 

<c  med 


364         Worflxp  of  hitman  Spirits 
<c  med  a  notion  of  their  gods  having  been 
"  buried  in  every  place  where  there  was  a 
cc  tumulus  to  their  honour"6. 

According  to  our  author,  taphos,  taphy 
or  tuphy  feems  to  have  been  a  'word  current 
'in  many  countries*.  Now,  might  it  not 
denote  a  fepulchral  mound  in  other  na 
tions  as  well  as  in  Greece  ?  That  it  was 
mifinterpreted  by  the  Greeks,  and  by 
them  alone,  is  a  point  which  has  not 
been  proved,  and  ought  not  to  be  taken 
for  granted.  Befides,  how  improbable  is 
it,  that  they  fhould  adopt  this  term  into 
their  own  language  without  learning  the 
meaning  of  it,  efpecially  as  it  was  in 
fuch  common  ufe  in  the  nations  around 
them  ?  Our  author  affirms,  that  the 
pra6lice  of  raifmg  the  taphoi,  or  mounds, 
in  queftion,  was  tranfmitted  from  the 
Egyptians  into  Greece g ;  and  that  many 
of  them  were  raifed  in  different  parts 
of  that  country  by  the  Amoniansh.  Now 
if  neither  any  inftruclion  in  the  meaning 
of  the  term,  nor  even  famples  of  the 

eP.453-     f  P.  449, 450.     s  Bryant,  p.  467.     hP.4j;i. 

thing 


in  tie  ancient  heathen  World* 

thing  intended  by  it,  could  enable  the 
Greeks  to  underftand  it,  though  the 
plaineft  in  all  their  language,  their  ftu- 
pidity  is  without  a  parallel,  and  difcove- 
red  itfelf  on  more  fubjefts  than  the 
names  of  the  foreign  gods1.  After  all, 
if  the  Greeks  were  miftaken,  in  fuppo- 
fing  that  the  gods  had  been  buried  in 
the  places  where  there  were  tumuli  to 
their  honour,  they  could  not  have  fallen 
into  fuch  a  miftake,  if  they  had  not  firft 
learned,  (from  the  Egyptians,  Amo- 
nians,  and  others,)  that  the  gods  had 
been  men. 

If  we  only  confider  the  nature  of 
the  cromlechs,  we  fhall  foon  be  con 
vinced  that  they  could  not  ferve  as  al 
tars  for  facrifical  fires  -y  becaufe  no  fire 
could  be  kindled  upon  them  fufficient  to 
confume  the  viflim  without  fcorching 
the  officiating  prieft  ;  becaufe  few,  if  a~ 
ny,  of  them,  could  bear  the  intenfenefs 
of  the  facrifical  fire ;  and  becaufe  the 
table- ilone  of  fome  of  them  was  fo  very 

1  See  above,  p.  331.  &fec[, 

gibbous, 


366         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

gibbous,  that  no  prieft  could  ftand  on 
it,  either  to  tend  the  fire  or  overfee  the 
eonfumption  of  the  viftimk.  Their  fize, 
and  form,  and  quality,  conclude  equal 
ly  againft  the  notion  of  their  being  de- 
figned  for  the  celebration  of  the  rites 
of  fire. 

That  the  conical  mounds  of  raifed 
earth  were  fepulchres,  and  the  crom 
lechs  fepulchral  tables  or  altars,  on 
which  oblations  of  food  were  made  to 
the  dead,  cannot  well  be  doubted  by 
thofe  who  refiefl,  that  the  barrow  was 
one  of  the  moft  ancient  and  common 
methods  of  interring  the  dead  l  -,  that 
the  cromlechs  are  found  uponm,  and  of 
ten  furrounded  with,  barrows  ;  that  the 
common  people  called  them  grave-Jlones" -, 

that 

k  In  proof  of  thefe  points,  feeBorlafe,  p.  226,  227. 

1  Borlafe,  p.  228.  ra  Id.  p.  229. 

n  On.  the  hill  Ridge,  north  of  Pottifham,  in  Dorfet- 
fhire,  is  a  cromlech,  which  Hands  upon  a  tumulus,  or 
barrow,  and  is  called  by  the  common  people  hell-ftone, 
that  is,  a  gra<ut-ftone.  Helle  fignifies  fepulcbrum.  It  is 
derived  from  Man,  to  cover,  or  conceal ;  and  therefore 

properly 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  367 
that  a  fmall  brook  near  this  kind  of  mo 
nument  is  called  the  ford  of  the  graves*  •> 
that  "  the  area  underneath  the  quoit  is 
"  very  near  the  dimenfions  of  the  hu- 
<c  man  body  and  every  kind  of  farcopha* 
<c  gus  of  the  ancients" p;  and,  laftly, 
that  underneath  or  near  thefe  monu 
ments  are  found  vaults,  and  human 
bones,  and  afhesq. 

It  may  be  obferved,  farther,  that  cir 
cular  monuments  alfo,  whether  open  or 
inclofed,  were  often  fepulchralrj  and 
that  fome  of  thefe  circles  were  diftin- 
guifhedby  a  cromlech5,  which  certainly 
was  an  appendage  to  fepulchres.  Such 
monuments,  according  to  Mr.  Borlafe \ 
are  found  not  only  in  Britain,  and  in  the 
adjacent  ifles,  but  in  Ireland,  France, 

properly  exprefles  the  grave,  that  common  covering,  or 
concealment,  of  mankind.  In  the  weft  of  England,  a 
tiler  is  itill  called  hsllier,  which  is  derived  from  the  fame 
verb  as  belle.  See  the  Hiftory  and  Antiq.  ofDorfetj. 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  J.  Hutchins,  v.  i.  p.  554. 

0  Borlafe,  p.  228.  P  Borlafe,  p.  228. 

9  P.  227,  229.     See  alfo  p.  193.  r  Id.  p.  209. 

•  P,  193.  t  p.  ,93,   235. 

Germany, 


368          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Germany,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  other 
countries.  And  Mr.  Bryant"  himfelf  has 
proved,  from  Paufanias  and  Strabo, 
what  might  be  more  fully  confirmed, 
that  the  Greeks  had  many  facred  mounds 
of  earth,  and  monuments,  which  they 
(who  certainly  were  the  moft  competent 
judges)  regarded  as  the  tombs  of  depar 
ted  heroes.  It  is  natural  to  fuppofe,  that 
thofe  conical  mounds  alfo,  which  have 
been  found  in  Egypt,  in  Perfia,  at  Troas, 
and  other  places,  and  are  taken  notice 
of  by  Mr.  Bryantv,  were  in  like  manner 
receptacles  of  the  dead,  notwithftanding 
what  has  been  advanced  to  the  contrary*. 

Clemens 

«  V.i.  p.  451,  465,  466, 

w  V.  i.  p.  449,  461-464,  466-469. 

*  According  to  Mr. Bryant's  conftruftion  Q^taph  andta- 
phos,  p.  449,  tapb-OJtris  mu&  denote  the  hill,  or  high  al 
tar,  of  Ofiris.  But,  all  that  can  be  hence  inferred  is,  that 
this  altar,  or  hill,  was  confecrated  to  Ofiris,  or  that  he  was 
an  object  of  religious  worfhip  ;  which  he  might  be,  and 
certainly  was,  notwithftanding  his  having  been  a  man^ 
Accordingly,  the  Greeks,  who  derived  all  their  know 
ledge  of  Ofiris  from  the  Egyptians,  and  without  doubt 
adopted  their  idea  of  him,  —  the  Greeks  by  taph  Ofiris 

underfiood 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      369 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  informs  us,  that 
the  places  of  fepulture  which  the  Heathens 
Ivorfhippe'dwere  too  numerous  to  be  counted*. 

underftood  the  burying-place  of  the  god  Ofiris,  (Plu 
tarch's  If.  &  Ofir.  p.  359.)  as  the  gentleman  himfelf 
allows,  p.  451,  461. 

He  lays  great  ftrefs  upon  the  cafe  of  the  Perfians, 
whom  he  reprefents,  p.  466,  467,  as  adhering  to  the 
purer  zabai'fm,  erecting  the  fame  facred  tupha  as  the 
Grecians,  dedicating  them  to  Anait,  the  great  fountain 
of  light,  and  founding  a  kind  of  temple,  of  a  co-nical 
figure,  in  honour  of  Anait,  Omanus,  and  Anandrates. 
But  it  has  been  mewn,  that  the  Perfians  wormipped 
dead  men,  (fee  above,  ch»  i.  feet.  i.  p.  47.  &  feq.  and 
below,  feel;.  2.  article  4.  n°i.)  and  that  Anait,  Oma 
nus,  ;and  Anandrates,  were  nothing  more  than  the  tu 
telary  deities  of  Perfia,  (fee  above,  p.  68-72.)  As  to 
the  Periians  raifing  a  temple  to  them,  and  efpecially  one 
that  fo  much  refembled  a  tomb,  it  is  rather  a  proof  than 
a  refutation  of  their  humanity.  It  feems  indeed  to 
have  been  a  kind  of  honorary  tomb,  (fee  above,  p.  327 
&  feq.)  and  was  erected  to  teftify  their  devotion  to  thefe 
gods,  to  whom  they  afcribed  their  victory  over  the 
Sacae.  Strabo,  1.  u,  p.  779*  And,  as  our  author 
admits  that  the  Helladians  and  the  Perfians  were  of  the 
fame  family,  and  had  many  fimilar  rites,  the  tupha  were 
certainly  raifed  by  both  with  the  fame  view. 


o^o?.     Clem.  Alexandr. 
Cohort,  ad  Gent.  p.  40. 

B  b  From 


of  human  Spirits 

From  the  facts  that  have  been  ftated 
we  may  infer  the  general  prevalence 
of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits  over  the 
heathen  world.  All  fepulchres,  even 
thofe  of  private  perfons,  were  places 
where  divine  honours  were  paid  to  the 
manes  of  the  dead.  Thofe  tumuli  and 
cromlechs,  which  have  been  reprefented 
merely  as  altars,  were  alfo  the  tombs 
and  monuments  of  gods,  and  heroes, 
and  other  great  men.  The  monuments 
were  probably  of  Celtic  origin,  and  were 
carried  by  that  numerous  people  into  all 
their  fettlements 7.  Both  the  facred 
mounds  and  monuments  are  found  in  all 
countries.  Their  ufe  was  in  all  the 
fame  -,  and  was  fo  obvious  that  it  could 
not  be  miilaken. 

As  to  the  Heathens  worshipping  dead 
men  at  tbe  veftibide  of  the  charnel-houfe, 
which  feems  fo  incredible  to  a  learned 
writer z,  the  reafon  of  it,  which  was 
promifed  to  be  affigned,  is  exceeding  ob- 

y  Borlafe,  p.  225.  z  Bryant,  v.  i.  p.  452. 

vious, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  371 
vious.  Even  the  philofophers8  maintain 
ed,  that  the  fouls  of  the  deceafed  prefer- 
ved  an  affe6tion  for  their  former  bodies, 
and  hovered  about  them,  or  the  places 
where  they  were  buried b.  The  fame 
opinion  formed  a  part  of  the  creed  of  the 
vulgar,  and  entered  into  the  religion  of 
the  ftatec. 

B  b  2  Now 

*  See  Macrobius,  in  Som.  Scip.  1.  i.  c.  9.  p.  35. 
c.  13.  p.  45.  1.  2.  c.  16.  p.  125.  ed.  Londini,  1694. 
Porphyr.  de  Abftinent.  1.  2.  §.  47.  Pato  ap.  Origen. 
c.  Celf.  p.  97. 

b  The  wandering  fouls  of  thofe  who  were  unburied 
returned  to  the  reil  of  the  grave  after  the  rites  of  fe- 
pulture  were  performed.  Pute  ergo  reddita  legitima 
fepultura,  redit  anima  ad  quietem  fepulchri.  Servius 
on  Virg.  y£n.  III.  68. 

c  Ita  plane;  quemadmodum  vulgus  exiilimat,  mor- 
tuorum  animas  circa  tumulos  et  corporum  fuorum  reli- 
quias  oberrare.  La&ant.  1.  2.  c.  2.  p.  117.  The 
common  perfuafion  was,  that  ghoits  were  capable  of 
feeling  preflure  from  the  earth  that  covered  their  bo 
dies  ;  as  appears  from  the  cuftom  of  praying  that  the 
earth  might  lie  light  or  prefs  heavy  upon  them,  as  the 
petitioners  were  well  or  ill  affected  towards  the  deceafed. 
Potter's  Gr.  Antiq.  v.  2.  b.  4.  c.  7.  p.  243.  The 
general  pr<i<5tice  of  confulting,  fupplicating,  and  ap- 
peafmg,  the  gods  at  their  tombs,  plainly  fuppofes  theif 
dwelling  there It  may  be  objeded,  that  emi 
nent 


372         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Now  what  could  be  more  natural 
than  for  the  Heathens,  who  worfhipped 
human  fouls,  to  do  it  in  the  places  where 
they  were  thought  to  refide  ?  Nor  did 
they  feel  the  difficulty  with  which  our 
author  was  affefted  :  for  they  paid  di 
vine  honours  to  the  carcafTesd,  the 
bones  %  and  afhes  f,  of  men  deceafed, 

nent  men  were  thought  to  return  at  death  to  their  native 
fey.  The  Heathens  faw  the  difficulty,  and  attempted' 
to  folve  it,  by  averting,  that  man  was  compounded  of 
three  (if  not  more)  parts ;  body,  mind,  and  foul.  The 
frft  was  committed  to  the  grave ;  the  fecond  either 
iifcended  into  heaven  or  defcended  into  the  lower  re 
gions  ;  the  third  remained  near  the  fepulchre.  Thofe 
who  divided  man  into  four  parts  remitted  the  manes  to 
Orcus.  Proofs  of  this  point  may  be  produced  here 
after.  I  mall  only  here  obferve,  that,  when  Hercules 
was  in  heaven,  (Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  16.)  Ulyf- 
fes  met  his  e^uhov  in  the  fhades  below.  OdyfT,  1.  xi.  600. 

d  See  above,  p.  165,  note  x. 

e  OfTa  tibi  juro  per  matris,  et  ofTaparentis. 

Propertius,  1.  JI.  eleg.  20.  v.  15. 

f  Virg.  J£n.  III.  303.  cited  above,  p.  329,  note  k. 
Cinsribus  hie  locus  facer  was  an  infcription  on  a  Hone  at 
Rome.  Guther*  de  Jure  Manium,  1.  2.  c.  19. 

and 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      373 

and  even  to  their  very  coffins g  and  fe- 
pulchresh;  notwithftanding  their  being 
moft  unequivocal  proofs  of  the  mortal 
origin  of  their  gods. 

II.  The  heathen  TEMPLES  were 
places  of  fepulture,  and  defigned  as  man- 
fions  for  fuch  gods  as  had  been  men. 

Fond  as  the  dead  were  fuppofed  to  be 
of  their  tombs  and  the  adjacent  places, 
the  Heathens  feem  to  have  been  appre- 
henfive  that  they  might  occafionally 
wander  from  them,  or  perhaps  totally 
defert  them,  after  the  diflblution  of  their 
bodies.  And  therefore,  the  more  effectu 
ally  to  fecure  their  perpetual  refidence, 
or  at  leaft  to  render  it  more  agreeable, 
they  raifed,  over  or  near  their  fepulchres, 
houfes,  or  palaces,  called  temples,  an- 
fwerable  to  the  magnificence  of  their 
former  condition ;  and  fupplied  them 
with  every  thing  that  could  gratify  their 

s  The  Athenians  received  the  coffin  of  Thefeus  with 
pompous  proceffions  and  facrifices  :  wo/xwatj  re  Aa^Tr^if 
f&|avro  x«t  SIWOMS.  Plutarchi  Thefeus,  p.  17. 

*  PifTejrt  on  Mir.  p.  191,  note  u. 

B  b  3  defires. 


374         Worfkip  of  human  Spirits 
defires1.     Thefe  temples  were  confidered 
as  the  proper  habitations*  of  the  gods  to 
whom  they  were  dedicated :    a  circum- 
ftance  which  demonftrates  that  they  were 
not  erected  to  the  fan,  moon,  ftars,  and 
elements  ;  for   whofe  reception  and  ac 
commodation   they  were  no  way  adapt 
ed.      On  the  other  hand,    they  corref- 
ponded  entirely  to  the  opinion  entertain 
ed  of  deified  men,    who  preferved,    as 
will  be  hereafter  fliewn,  all  their  former 
difpofitions,  and  whofe  pride,  confequent- 
ly,  was  highly   flattered  by  fumptuous 

*  See  under  article  VI. 

k  The  Heathens  called  their  temples  ruq  x^ca$  x«t 
to,  t$v  SIM.  Vid.  Selden.  de  Synedr.  1.  3.  c.  14. 
They  applied  to  them  the  terms  OMOI,  &  <^toj.  Spencer 
de  Leg.  Heb.  Rit.  p.  891.  Templum,  inquit,  hoc 
Martis  eft,  hoc  Junonis,  —  quid  eft  aliud  dicere,  quam 
domus  haec  Martis  e£,  haec  Junonis?  &c.  Arnobius, 
1.  6.  p.  191.  Origcn  reprefents  the  heathen  demons  as 
taking  up  their  refidence  in  temples  and  images,  either 
from  choice  or  through  the  allurement  of  magical  rites  ; 
and  fpeaks  of  the  heathen  temples  as  the  places  where 
were  &«/*<wf  ttyiuvoi.  Origenc.  Celf.  1.  3.  p.  131.  He 
is  fpeaking  of  deified  men,  whofe  fouls  the  Gentiles 
called  demons.  Aa'/xovpcj  piy  ?%$  f^fuv  i]/fp£«s  KU.'A*)VTI$* 
Clem.  Alexandr.  Strom.  1.  6.  p.  755. 

palaces, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      375 

palaces,     and   all   the  attendance,    and 
flate,  and  pomp,  of  royalty. 

Accordingly  the  early  Chriftians,  and 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  in  particular,  af 
firmed,  that  the  buildings,  which  the 
Heathens  called  by  the  honourable 
name  of  temples,  were  in  reality  nothing 
elfe  but  the  fepulchres  of  dead  men  !  ; 
and  that  they  placed  their  coffins  in  ma 
ny  of  their  temples  as  fo  many  ftatues 
of  their  gods01.  Eufebius"  entertained  the 
fame  opinion  of  their  temples  as  Cle 
mens.  Cyril0  alfo,  and  St.  Auftinp,  and 
Prudentius4,  and  other  Chriftian  wri- 


oe 

;  vsu<;  £7rtxgjiXr/>t£j>a<j.      Cohort,    ad    Geht. 
p.  39.  ed.  Potteri.     See  alfo  p.  40,  74. 

m  Awriy.a,  01  EJUTTE^O*  TS  Ao-ya,   KKTO.  raj  logvcrsii;   ey 

ffJV      l£j>UV,     X.CX,l       <T%l$QV      W&CTOIS       TCi$    SiJXa?     TdlV 

tno^va-tx-vro.     Stromat.  1.6.  p.  755. 

n  Pr^ep.  Ev.   1.  2.   C.  6.      FT^t   TS  vexguv  eivcti  T<X$X<;  tec, 

OC.V7UV   iBga,  TUV  Seuv* 

Cyril.  Alexandr.  contra  Julian.  1.  10.  p.  342,  343. 
Auguil.  de  Civ.  Dei,  1.8.  c.  26.  1.  18.  c.  5. 
Et  tot  templa  detim  Romae,  quot  in  urbe  fepulchra 
Heroum,  numerare  licet.  — 

PrudentiusadSymmachum,  I.  i» 

B  b  4  ters, 


376         Worjhlp  of  htiman  Spirits 

ters,  reprefent  the  heathen  temples  as 
places  of  fepulture.  Arnobius  not  only 
fpeaks  of  them  in  the  fame  view',  but, 
in  a  paffage  produced  above,  tells  the 
Gentiles,  that  all  the  gods  they  had  in 
their  temples  had  been  men*. 

The  language  of  the  Heathens  on  the 
fubjeft  before  us  agrees  with  that  of  the 
ancient  Chriftians.  Hermes  Trifmegif- 
tus  is  reprefented  as  forefeeing,  that,  e- 
ven  in  Egypt,  the  temples  of  the  gods 
would  be  filled  with  the  tombs  of  the 
dead'.  And  Sanchoniathon  relates,  that 
the  Egyptians,  and  other  ancient  nations, 
transferred,  to  the  deified  benefa&ors 
of  the  human  race,  the  temples  which 

*  Quid?  quod  multa  ex  his  templa,  qtiae  tholis  funt 
aureis  et  fublimibus  elata  veitigiis,  audlorum  confcrip- 
tionibus  comprobatur  contegere  cineres  atque  oiTa,  et 
fun&orum  efie  corporum  fepulturas.    Arnob.  adv.  Gent. 

P-  193- 

'  P-  345- 

*  Hermes  ipfe,  —  quafi  futura  praenunciando,  deplo- 

rans  ait :  Tune  terra  ilia  fanftiffima  (fc.  ^Egyptus)  fedes 
delubrprum  atque  templorum,  fepulchrorum  erit  mor- 
tuorumque  pleniflima.  Ap.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8. 
c.  26. 

had 


in  tie  ancient  heathen  World.      377 

had  been  erefted  to  the  elements  and 
planets11. 

There  are  many  fa£ts  on  record 
which  confirm  the  point  we  have  been 
endeavouring  to  eftablifh.  Temples  were 
every  where  raifed  to  the  gods  of  the 
higher  order,  whom  we  have  already 
proved  to  be  mere  mortals.  Vulcan, 
whofe  own  temple  was  at  Memphis,  e- 
refled  feveral  temples  to  his  wife,  who 
became  \hzdea  Cypria  and  the  dea  Syria™. 

The 


u  Et?  TO  xgsuv  xararafTa?  vatf?  fjt,srct.<rx.tvot,<Toi,u,em»  Ap, 
Eufeb.  Pr#p.  Ev.  1.  i.  p.  32.  D.  -  This  pafiage 
and  that  in  the  preceding  note  imply,  that  temples  had 
been  creeled  to  other  gods  before  men  were  worfhippetf. 
in  them.  But,  as  the  word  temple  was  often  ufed  in  a 
large  fenfe,  for  a  place  confecratedto  the  gods,  thefe  paf- 
fages  are  very  reconcileable  with  the  opinion  of  thofe 
who  think  temples,  properly  fo  called,  were,  from  the 
ftrft,  fepulchral  monuments. 

w  Newton's  Chronology,  p.  224,  225.  As  the  Hea 
thens  creeled  many  temples  as  well  as  tombs  to  the  fame 
god,  and  fuppofed  him  to  be  perfonally  prefentin  each, 
they  mufthave  afcribed  to  human  fpirits  a  kind  of  ubi 
quity  ;  in  the  fame  manner  as  the  Romaniftsdoin  offer 
ing  prayers  to  the  fame  faint,  in  the  fame  inflant  of 
tjme,  in  every  part  of  the  world.  Such  was  the  doc 

trine 


378          Worfhlp  of  human  Spirits 

The  Syrians  worfliipped  one  of  their 
queens,  and  ufed  her  fepulchre  for  a 
temple x.  At  Colchis  there  was  a  temple 
and  a  grove  dedicated  to  Phrixus7.  The 
bones  of  Protefilaus  were  depofited  in  a 
confecrated  chapel".  Caftor  and  Pollux 
had  temples  erefted  to  them  not  only  at 

trine  of  Jerome;  (adverf.  Vigilantium,  p.  42.  ed, 
Parif.  1546.)  Cum  diabolus  et  daemones  toto  vagentur 
irl  orbe,  et  celeritate  nimia  ubzque  pra-fentes  fnit,  mar- 
tyres  poll  effufionem  fanguinis  fui  area  operientur  in- 
cluii,  et  inde  exire  non  poterint  ? 

x  Juftin.  1.  36.  c.  2.  cited  above,  p.  204.     The  fe 
pulchre  is  generally  diftinguifhed  from  the  temple  : 

Eft  urbe  egreffis  tumulus,  templumque  vetuflum 

Defertae  Cereris.  —  Virg.  JEn.  II.  7 1 3 . 
See  alfo  v.  742,  and  below,  note  z. 

y  Above,  p.  1 20. 

2  Ib.  p.  121.  Numerous  infknces  of  perfons  of 
high  rank  being  buried  within  the  precinfts  of  temples 
may  be  found  in  Clem.  Alexandr.  Cohort,  ad  Gent.  p. 
39.  Arnob.  p.  193.  Cyril,  contr.  Julian,  p.  342.  I 
ihall  only  add,  that  Apries  was  buried  in  the  fepulchre 
of  his  anceftors,  creeled  in  the  temple  of  Minerva. 
Herodotus,  1.2.  c.  169.  The  fame  hiftorian  fays  of 
Amafis,  1.  3.  C.  IO.  Era^  ev  TJS«  Tapjjer*  TJJC-J  iv  ru 
i^w,  T«?  afro;  oixooo^JjcraTo. 

Sparta, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  379 
Sparta,  but  at  Athens a.  And  Maximus 
Tyrius,  fpeakingof  Egypt,  fays,  A  god 
dies  and  is  buried,  and  you  are  Jhe<wn  in  the 
fame  place  his  temple  and  his  tomb b.  Laftly, 
the  reafon  given  by  Herodotus  for  there 
being  no  temples  in  Perfia,  viz.  that 
their  gods  had  not  been  men%  clear 
ly  fhews,  that  it  was  to  fuch  gods  as 
had  been  men  that  thefe  facred  edifices 
were  raifed  in  other  countries. 

III.  The  PYRAMIDS  were  fepul- 
chral  monuments  and  altars. 

The  great  pyramid"  at  Babylon  was 
well  known  under  the  name  of  the  tem 
ple  of  Belus,  (the  founder  of  the  Babylo 
nian  empire^)  which  fufficiently  fhews, 
that  it  was  his  fepulchral  monument, 
and  erefled  for  his  worfhip.  The  pyra- 

*  Theodoret  (1.8.  Grascanicarumaffe&iormm)  fays, 
&AA&  ncti  As}'/9!/oac,  THTSC 


b 


OHX.VVTOU.  nag    ctvron;   itgov    $£«,    xat    ra^oj    Sea.      Maxim. 
Tyr.  Diflert.  38.  p.  398.  ed.  Davif.  C'antab.  1705. 

c  Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  131.  cited  above,  p.  48. 

d  See  above,  p.  194. 

mids 


380         Worjhlp  of  hitman  Spirits 

mids  built  by  Porfena,  king  of  Etruria, 
near  Clufium,  and  by  Caeftius,  at  Rome, 
were  alfo  the  fepulchres  and  monuments 
of  the  dead6.  And,  as  thefe  were  imita 
tions  of  thofe  in  Egypt,  it  is  natural  to 
fuppofe  that  both  had  the  fame  inten 
tion.  But,  as  fome  will  not  allow  that 
the  Egyptian  pyramids,  more  celebrated 
than  any  other,  were'  places  of  fepul- 
ture,  I  fhall  fubmit  the  following  obfer- 
vations  to  the  judgement  of  the  reader. 

It  was  cuftomary  with  the  ancients  to 
raife  mounds  of  an  immenfe  magnitude 
upon  the  graves  of  their  monarchs  and 
other  perfons  of  great  diitinclionf.  The 
Egyptians g,  in  particular,  though  not 

very 

e  Greave's  Defcription  of  the  Pyramids,  p.  64, 
Univ.  Hift.  v.  i.  p.  430.  8vo,  1747. 

f  The  mount  raifed  over  Ninus  was  faid  to  be  nine 
furlongs  in  height  and  ten  in  breadth.  Ctefias  apr 
Diodor.  Sic.  1.  2.  p,  120.  ed.  Wefleling.  The  monu 
ment  of  Hephaeftion  coil  twelve  thoufand  talents, 
Juflin.  1.  12.  c.  12.  See  Borlafe's  Antiq.  of  Cornw. 
p.  218. 

s  Et  regum  cineres  exftrudlo  monte  quiefcant.  Lu- 
can.  lt  8.  v.  695.  Concerning  the  wonderful  fepul 
chres 


m  the  ancient  heathen  World.  381 
very  curious  in  building  their  houfes,  as 
being  but  temporary  habitations,  ex 
ceeded  all  imaginable  magnificence  in 
their  fepulchres,  confidering  them  as 
their  eternal  man/ions*.  They  feem  to 
have  believed,  that,  as  long  as  the  body 
lafted,  fo  long  the  foul  was  prefent  with 
it.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  to  fuppofe, 
that  their  attention  would  be  very  much 
employed  in  preferving  the  former  from 
corruption,  and  in  accommodating  both 
with  a  durable  habitation. 

Accordingly,  the  moft  ancient  and 
credible  hiftorians  reprefent  the  pyramids 
as  royal  fepulchres,  From  Herodotus 
we  learn,  that  the  body  of  Cheops  '  was 
depofited  under  the  pyramid  which  he 
himfelf  had  built k  5  that  his  fon  and 

chres  of  the  ancient  kings  of  Egypt  fee  Diodor.  Sic. 
1.  2.  p.  56,  57. 

h  Ta9«?  aV&tts  oixtfj  fl-goo-ayo^vtfcrjy.  Diodor.  Sic.  I.  I. 
p.  60,  6l. 

1  By  Diodorus  he  is  called  Chemnis,  1.  I.  p.  72. 

k  Herodot.  1.2.  c.  124-127.  In  this  pyramid  therr 
Hands  a  tomb  at  this  day.  Univerfal  Hift.  v.  i.  p. 
429,  438. 

daughter 


382         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

daughter  did  each  of  them  imitate  their 
father  in  building  a  pyramid  !,  (no  doubt 
with  the  fame  intention  ;)  that  Afychis 
erefted  a  pyramid  of  brick  for  his  mo 
nument  m  ;  and  that  the  labyrinth,  near 
the  lake  Mceris,  a  ftrudture  much  more 
admirable  even  than  the  pyramids,  con 
tained  the  fepulchres  of  the  kings  who 
built  it,  and  of  the  holy  crocodiles". 
Strabo,  fpeaking  of  the  top  of  a  moun 
tain  near  Memphis,  fays,  that  all  the 
pyramids  upon  it  were  royal  fepulchres  °. 
And  Diodorus  Siculus  informs  us,  that 
the  two  pyramids,  built  by  Chemnis 
and  Cephres,  were  by  them  defigned  for 
their  own  fepulchres,  though  both  were 
buried  in  other  places  p.  To  thefe  tefti- 

monies 

1  Herodot,  ubi  fupra.  m  Id.  ib.  c.  136. 

ft  Ib.  c.  149. 

°    rioAAoii  JW,£P    Tn^ajtXtOS?     HJCr;,     TO^Ot    70JV    $S(,Q'tf\lUV»         Stl'ri- 

bo,  1.  17,  p.  1161. 

P  Tuv    OB    CaaiAeWv    TUV 


^rerov    ctvruv    rat 
Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  73.     But,  though  it   ib  fell  out 
that  neither  of  thefe  kings  was  buried  in  the  pyramid 

he 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      383 

monies  I  might  add  thofe  of  Lucanq, 
Statius r,  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus s ; 
as  alfo  thofe  of  the  Arabs,  Copts,  and 
Sabians'  j  were  they  wanted  in  fo  plain  a 
cafe". 

The 

he  ere&ed,  neverthelefa  both  the  edifices  might  be  ufed 
as  altars  for  their  worfhip.  As  the  afhes  of  Germani- 
cus  were  carried  through  the  cities  of  Italy,  Tacitus 
fays,  (Annal.  1.  3.  c.  2.)  Etiam  quorum  diverfa  oppi- 
da,  tamen  obvii,  et  viclimas  atque  aras  diis  manibus 
ftatuentes,  lacrimis  et  conclamationibus  dolorem  teita- 
bantur,  See  what  was  obferved  above  concerning  hono 
rary  tombs,  p.  327  &  feq. 

9  Cum  Ptolemaeorum  manes,  feriemque  pudendam, 
Pyramides  claudant,  indignaque  maufolea.     L.  8. 
v.  698.     Pyramidum  tumulis  evulfus  Amafis.     Id.  1.  9. 
v.  155.     Compare    Pliny,    Nat.  Hift,  1.  36.    p.   738. 
torn.  2.  ed.  Harduin. 

r  Atque  utinam,  Fortuna,  dares  mihi  manibus  aras, 
Par  templis  opus,  aeriamque  educere  molem, 
Cyclopum  fcopulos  ultra,  atque  audacia  faxa 
Pyramidum,  et  magno  tumulum  pra^texere  luco. 

Stat.  Sylv.  v.  3.  47. 
8  Cohort,  ad  Gent.  p.  44.  ed.  Potteri. 
t  Univer.  Hift.  v.  i.  p.  427.     See  p.  445. 
u  See  Dr.  Pococke's  account  of  the  pyramids,  Qb~ 
few  aliens  on  Egypt,  v.  I.  p.  40-67.     Dr.  Shaw  (Tra 
vels,  p.  418,   lit  ed.)  objects    againfl    the  pyramids  of 

Cfphrenes 


384         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

The  pyramids  were  not  only  places 
of  fepulture,  but  of  religious  worfhip. 
They  were  commonly  called  the  co 
lumns  or  altars  of  the  godsw.  On  the  top 
there  was  a  platform x,  where  the  facred 
rites  might  be  celebrated;  and  they  were 
furrounded  with  buildings,  which  pro 
bably  were  colleges  for  the  priefts  y. 
That  the  pyramids  were  altars  is  a  point 
which  cannot  be  difputed ;  but  it  is  no 
juft  inference  from  hence,  that  they  were 
not  alfo  fepulchres.  For  altars  were  con- 
ftant  appendages  to  the  fepulchres  of  fuch 

Cepbrenes  and  Mjcerinus  being  fepulchres,  becaufe  "  no 
"  pafiage  was  left  open  into  them  as  into  the  great  py- 
"  ramid."  But  the  entrance  into  the  great  pyramid 
was  at  firlt  Jhut  up.  Pococke,  v.  i.  p.  234,240.,  244. 
The  eafe  was  probably  the  fame  as  to  the  other  two. 

w  See  Kircher,  (Oedipus  ^Egyptiacus,  Syntag.  iv- 
c.  12.  p.  309,  310.)  who  cites  feveral  authorities  to 
prove  that  the  pyramids  were  altars,  beiides  that  line 
of  the  poet, 

Votaque  pyramidum  celfas  folvuntur  ad  aras. 
The  fteps,    by  which  they  afcended  to   the  top,  were 
called  by   fome  £«{«&$,    little   altars.     Herodot.  1.  2, 
c.  125. 

*  Univ.  Hift.  ubi  fupra,  p«  432. 

y  Id.  ib.  p.  440. 

men 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       385 

men  as  were  deified,  if  not  of  all  other 
perfons2.  They  were  fometimes  placed 
upon  the  monument  a,  which  exaftly 
anfvvers  to  the  cafe  before  us.  In  honour 
of  the  Grecian  heroes,  who  fell  in  the 
defence  of  their  country  at  Thermopylae, 
altars  were  ufed  inftead  of  fepulchres b. 
Nay,  funeral  piles  were  conftru6led  and 
deemed  as  altars0.  From  the  pyramids 
being  altars,  therefore,  we  may  ratheir 
infer  that  they  were  alfo  fepulchres  than 
the  contrary.  Now,  if  they  were  royal 
fepulchres,  monuments,  and  altars,  they 
were  certainly  confecrated  to  the  worlhip 

z  Hence  we  read  of  the  ara  fepulchri,  Virg.  ^n. 
VI.  177.  and  of  the  arae  fepulchrales,  Ovid.  Meta- 
morph.  VIII.  480.  See  Virg.  ;£n.  V.  47,  48.  Ill, 
305.  Altars  were  fometimes  only  a  heap  of  green 
turf:  Araque  gramineo  viridi  de  cefpite  fiat.  Ovid. 
Trift.  V.  9.  And  fuch  altars  were,  it  is  probable, 
raifed  at  all  graves. 

a  In  eo  monumento  folium  porphyretici  marnioris 
fuperftante  Lunenfi  ara.  Sueton.  Ner.  c.  50. 

b  Bw/xoj  $  o  ru(po<;.  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  xi.  p.  412.  ed« 
Wefleling. 

c  Pyra  —  quas  in  modum  ara;  conflrui  lignis  folebat. 
Servius  in  Virg.  JEn.  VI.  177. 

c  c  of 


386         ffiorfoip  of  human  Spirits 

of  the  Egyptian  monarchs.  At  every 
common  fepulchre,  prayers,  facrifices, 
and  libations,  were  offered  to  the  dead 
by  the  ancient  nations :  and,  amongft 
the  Egyptians  in  particular,  as  we  have 
already  feen,  a  temple  and  a  tomb  were 
erefted  to  the  fame  deity.  The  great 
height  of  the  pyramids  well  agrees  with 
the  opinion  of  their  being  the  fepulchral 
monuments  and  altars  of  the  Egyptian 
monarchs.  High  columns  and  pyramids, 
over  the  tombs  of  perfons  of  the  greateft 
diftin6Hond,  correfponded  to  their  former 
ftate  and  dignity,  and  were  defigned  to 
announce  their  exaltation,  after  death, 

;  to  the  rank  of  the  celeftial  gods. 

Some 

d  Servius,  on  Virg.  ^En.  XL  489,  fays,  Apud  ma- 
jores,  nobiles,  aut  fub  montibus  aids,  aut  in  ipfis  mon- 
tibus  fepeliabantur ;  unde  natum  eft,  ut,  fuper  cada- 
vera,  aut  pyramides  aut  ingentes  collocarentur  colum 
ns.  See  above,  p.  380,  note  f.  Concerning  an  ara 
fepulcliri  Virgil  fays,  coelo  educere  certant.  JEn.  VI. 
178.  Every  one  knows  that  high  altars  were  raifed  to 
the  celeftial  gods,  amongft  whom  we  are  to  reckon  fuch 
human  gods  as  were  fuppofed  to  be  advanced  to  heaven. 
Jovi,  omnibufque  coelciHbus,  excelfiffimse,  (fc.  arae) ; 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      387 

Some  writers,  however,  being  defirous 
of  difcovering,  in  every  facred  building 
and  rite  of  the  Heathens,  an  allufion  to 
elementary  and  fidefeal  deities,  have 
fancied,  that  the  pyramids,  refembling 
(as  they  allege)  a  rifmg  flame,  which 
from  a  broad  bafe  gradually  leflens  and 
terminates  in  a  point  %  were  fymbols 
offiref;  and  hence  have  concluded,  that 
they  were  confecrated  to  the  fung* 

Veftae,  terrae,  mariquc  humiles,  In  mediis  aedibus  confti- 
tiierentur.  Vitruv.  1.  4.  c.  8.  See  Potter's  Gr.  Ant* 
V.  I.  b.iL  ch.2.p.  178,  179;  and  below,  p.  390,  note0. 
e  Ad  ignis  fpeciem  extenuatur  in  conum.  Ammian. 
Marcellin.  1.  22.  c.  15.  p.  262.  Some  derive  pyramid 
from  the  Greek  word  pitr,  fre.  Others,  who  more 
properly  look  for  the  etymology  of  it  in  the  Coptic  lariri' 
guage,  derive  it  either  from  pouro,  a  king,  and  mifit  ft 
generation,  (Univerf.  Hifh  ubi  fupra,  p.  425.)  or  front 
piromis,  which,  according  to  Herodotus,  (1.2.  c.  143^ 
144.)  denotes,  in  the  language  of  Egypt,  a  wort  by  and 
brave  man.  Perizon.  ^Egypt.  Orig.  torn.  i.  p.  447. 
f  Porphyr.  ap.  Eufeb.  Prcep.  Ev.  1.  3.  c;y.  p^pS.D* 
s  Cones  and  obelifks,  it  is  faid,  were  dedicated  to 
the  fun.  Porphyr.  ubi  fupra.  Hermatiles  ap.  Ter- 
tullian.  de  fpeclaculis,  c.  8.  p.  76.  ed.  Rigalt.  1675. 
Plin.  Hifh  Nat.  1.  36.  c.  8.  torn.  2.  p.  735.  ed.  Har- 
duin* 

C  c  z  But 


388         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

But  we  are  told,  concerning  the  great 
pyramid,  (what  is  probably  true  of  the 
reft,)    that  it  does  not  terminate  in  a 
point,    as  mathematical    pyramids   do, 
but  in  a  flat,  or  fquare,  confifting  of  e- 
leven  large  ftonesh.      The  reafon,  why 
they  frequently  made  ufeof  the  pyramidal 
figure  for  thefe  monuments,    probably 
was  it's  being  the  moft  permanent  form 
offtrufture1.  However  this  may  be,  cer 
tain  it  is  in  faft,  that,  though  obelilks 
and  pyramidal  pillars  might  be  originally 
confecrated  to  the  elements k,  they  were 
afterwards  ere<5ted  to  fuch  gods   as  had 
been  men.     Jupiter  Meilichius,    Juno, 
Apollo,  Bacchus,  Venus,  and  other  de 
ities  of  human  origin,  were  worfhipped 
under  the  form   of  obelifks  and  pyra 
mids1.  The  mere  figure,  therefore,  of  the 

pyramids 

h  Univ.  Hift.  p.  432.  *  Id.  ib.  p.  430. 

k  According  to  Sanchoniathon,  (ap.  Eufeb.  Praep. 
Ev.  1.  i.  p.  35.  A.)  Ufous confecrated  two  columns  to 
the  wind  andfo-e.  See  above,  note  f. 

1  Paufanias  in  Corinth,  p.  132,  133.  Maxim.  Tyr. 
Divert.  38.  p.  401.  ed.Davif.  Clem.  Alexandr.  Stro- 

mat. 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      389 

pyramids  of  Egypt,  creates  no  fort  of  pre- 
fumption  that  they  were  appropriated  to 
the  elements.  And,  even  allowing  them 
to  have  been  intended  as  emblems  of  fire, 
in  this  view  they  well  agree  with  the 
idea  the  ancients  entertained  of  the  fouls 
of  their  deified  men,  as  originally  taken 
from  the  igneous  element  in  the  heavenly 
regions,  and  as  being  now  returned  to 
the  celeftial  luminaries,  which  were  ima 
gined  to  confift  of  fire™.  But  the  objec 
tion  we  are  confidering  was  advanced,  by 
fome  of  the  heathen  philofophers,  mere 
ly  to  throw  a  veil  over  that  fhocking  ab- 
furdity,  the  worfhip  of  mortal  gods, 
of  which  the  pyramids  furnifh  the  moft 
ftriking  and  lafting  evidence.  Not  only 
were  pyramids  and  temples,  but, 

IV.  The  OTHER  PLACES  moft  u- 
fually  confecrated  to  the  gods,  in  very  an- 

mat.  1.  i.  p.  418.     Selioliaft  on  the  Vefpae  of  Arifto- 
phancs,  v.  870. 

m  Empedoclesheld  vvgivu  ra  urga,  (Plutarch.  Placit. 
Philofoph.  1.  2.  c.  13.)  and  fo  did  the  ancients  in  ge 
neral.  Horace  calls  them  igneas  arces. 

C  c  3  tient 


390         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

tient  times,  were  places  of  fepulture, where 
divine  hounors  were  paid  to  the  dead. 

This  was  the  cafe  more  particularly 
with  refpeft  to  the  caves,  the  houfes,  the 
highways.,  the  groves,  and  the  mountains* 
where  the  gods  were  worfhipped. 

i  *  That,  in  the  very  early  ages  of  the 
world,  the  Heathens  paid  their  worfhip 
to  the  gods  in  caves  and  caverns,  at  the 
bottom  of  mountains  and  rocks,  is  a 
matter  not  fubjeft  to  difpute".  The  quef- 
tion  here  is,  What  gods  were  worfhip 
ped  in  thefe  places  ?  To  which  I  anfwer, 
not  the  gods  flyled  fupernal  -,  becaufe  they 
were  worfhipped  upon  high  altars0, 
which  were  not  fuited  to  a  cave.  The 
infernal  gods,  on  the  other  hand,  were 

n  See  Bryant's  Mythol.  v.  I.  p.  217  &  feq.  The 
caves,  of  which  I  here  fpeak,  are  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  hollows  and  fiiTures  upon  the  tops  of  moun 
tains  and  rocks,  though  the  diftinftion  between  them 
has  not  been  always  attended  to. 

0  Altaria  ab  altitudine  didla  funt :  quod  antiqui  diis 
fuperis  in  aedificiis  a  terra  exaltatis  facra  faciebant. 
Pompon.  Feftus.  Schedius  de  diis  German,  p.  503. 
See  above,  p.  386.  note  *, 

worfhipped 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      391 

worfliipped  without  any  altars,  or  upon 
very  low  onesp.  To  thefe  gods,  there 
fore,  it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  caves 
were  appropriated1.  Before  men  had 
furnifhed  themfelves  with  more  conve 
nient  habitations,  they  took  fhelter  in 
caves  and  dens.  Thefe  were  their  dwel 
lings  while  they  lived,  and  their  graves 
when  they  diedr.  And  we  have  feen, 
that,  wherever  men  were  buried,  there 
they  were  worfhipped.  Confequently, 
caves  being  places  of  fepulture,  they 
could  not  but  be  the  fcenes  where  idola 
ters  worfhipped  the  dead.  Indeed,  what 
other  gods  were  likely  to  refide  in  thofe 
repofitories  of  the  dead  but  fuch  as  lay 
buried  in  them  ? 

P  Potter's  Gr.  Antiq.v.  I.  b.  2.  c.  2.  p.  178,  179. 

3  Atque  ut  aras  fuperis,  ita  antra  erant  diis  inferis 
deftinata.  Tomaiin.  de  Donariis  veterum,  c.  5. 

r  Sepulchra  fueruntolim  veteribus,  quae  etiam  antea 
domos  praebuerunt,  fpeluncse.  Petit.  Leg.  Attic,  p. 
595.  Bos  (Antiq.  of  Greece,  ch.  23.  p.  426.)  has 
ibewn  that  caves  were  fepulchres. 

C  c  4  A 


392         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

A  very  learned  writer5  would  perfuade 
us,  cc  that  the  reverence  paid  to  caves 
<c  and  grottos  arofe  from  a  notion,  that 
"  they  were  areprefentation  of  the  world". 
And  it  muft  be  acknowledged,  that  this 
is  the  view  given  us  of  them  by  Porphy 
ry1,  in  his  treatife  upon  the  grotto  of  the 
Nereids  defcribed  or  invented  by  Homer". 
But  Porphyry's  explication  of  this  grotto 
receives  no  fupport  from  Homer,  and 
has  been  pronounced,  by  the  moft  im 
partial  and  capable  judges,  a  laboured, 
and  diftant  allegory" .  It  was,  at  beft,  3, 
mere  fpeculation  of  the  learned,  remote 
from  the  conception  and  creed  of  the 
people  :  and  therefore  does  not  belong 
to  our  prefent  fubject.  We  are  to  pafs  the 
fame  judgement  on  what  Porphyry  fays, 
when  he  reprefents  the  Arcadians  as 

*  Bryant,  Mythol.  v.  I.  p.  232. 

*  Ewova.  QtgovToq  (TTwhuiv  T*  xocr/xs.     De  Antro  Nymph, 
p.  254.     See  alfo  p.  252,  262. 

*  Odyff.  1.  13.  v.  103. 

*  Pope's  Homer,  in  the  note  on  v.  124. 

worshipping 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  393 
worfhipping  the  moon  in  cavesx.  He  on 
ly  gives  us  ,his  own  phyfical  ex-plication 
of  (what  was  very  different  from  it)  the 
popular  and  civil  theology.  Nothing  is 
fo  likely  to  prevent  us  from  form  ing  juft 
ideas  of  the  eft ablilhed  religion  of  the 
Heathens  as  not  conftantly  diftinguifh- 
Ing  between  that  and  the  gloffes  of  the 
philofophers  ;  many  of  which  were  in 
vented  merely  to  fupport  it's  reputation, 
^and  were  propagated  with  peculiar  zeal 
after  Christianity. had  raifed  up  new  and 
powerful  enemies  againft  it. 

It  maybe  farther  objected,  that  Mi 
thras  was  worfliipped  in  a  cave7,  though, 
according  to  Hefychius2,  Strabo3,  Sui- 
dasb,  and  other  writers,  this  Perfian  de 
ity  was  the  fun.  But  Mithras,  even  fup- 

*  Porphyr.  de  Antro  Nymph,  p.  262. 

y  Porphyr.  de  Antro  Nymphar.  p.  262.  Bryant's 
Mythol.  v.  i.  p.  217,  224.  Kircher's  Odip.  ^Egypt. 
gyntag.  3.  c.  7.  p.  216.  Statins,  Theb.  1.  I.  v.  719. 

2   In   VOC.    Mi%a?,   o   «Aio?   wa^  n^aat?. 

a  TVwcrt  Js  xaf  yhiov,  ov  xaAycn  Mi-^av.  Strabo,  I. 
?5  P- 1064. 

o^aatv  ot  U^con  £H/«t  rov  yfoov.  Suidasinvoc. 

pofmg 


394         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

poling  him  to  have  been  a  man,  might 
be  put  for  the  fun,  as  Apollo  and  Ofiris 
were,  though  the  former  was  one  of  the 
twelve  greater  gods,  who  were  all  natives 
of  the  earth,  and  the  latter  had  been, 
king  of  Egypt.  It  is  not  neceffary  to  in 
quire  here  on  what  accounts0  Mithras 
was  put  for  the  fun,  though  a  human 
fpirit ;  but  the  idea  of  him  here  given  is 
fupported  by  the  authority  of  Statius, 

c  Some  human  fouls  were  faid  to  be  converted  into 
celeftial  luminaries.  DifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  214.  note  f. 
Sometimes  theprefiding  demon  was  called  by  the  name 
of  the  celeftial  deity  from  whom  he  derived  his  autho 
rity.  Ib,  p.  175,  note1,  p.  179,  note  f.  Thofe,  who 
confidered  human  figures  as  fymbols,  fpoke  of  thofe 
fymbols  as  being  the  gods  they  reprefented.  According 
to  Julius  Firmicus,  the  Perfians  reprefented  fre  under 
the  image  of  a  man  and  woman  :  (Et  viri  et  faminar 
Jimulacbra  ignis  fuaft ant i am  deput antes,  p.  II.)  Why 
then  might  not  they  reprefent  the  fun  under  a  human 
figure?  Thofe,  who  regarded  Mithras  as  a  fymbol 
of  the  fun,  would  call  him  by  that  name,  though  Mi- 
thras  himfelf  was  the  immediate  objecl:  of  worfhip  to  all, 
and  to  the  people  the  fole  objecl;. 

who 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       395 

who  makes  Apollo,  Oiiris,  and  Mithras, 
to  be  one  and  the  fame  perfond. 

That  Mithras  was  not  that  aftrono- 
mical  body  we  call  the  fun  appears  from 
the  accounts  given  of  him  by  the  an- 
tients.  The  Perfians,  according  to  Xe- 
nophon,  paid  their  worfhip  to  the  fun 
upon  the  fummits  of  mountains*:  but 
Mithras  was  worfhipped  in  a  cave,  and 
therefore  as  one  of  the  dli  inferi.  The  fun, 
confidered  as  a  natural  divinity,  was,  by 
the  Heathens,  thought  to  be  eternal f. 
Mithras,  on  the  other  hand,  according  to 
the  fabulous  theogony  of  thePerfians,was 
born  from  a  rock,  and  from  that  rock  be 
gat  Diorphus z :  a  plain  proof  of  their  not 


Seute  rofeum  Titana  vocari 


Gentis  Achemenias  ritu,  feu  pnsftat  Ofirin 
Frugiferum,  feu  Perfei  fub  rupibus  antri 
Jndignata  fequi  torquentem  cornua  Mitram. 

Statius,  Theb.  I.  717. 

See  La&antius,  as  here  cited,  in  Veenhufen's  edition. 
e  Xenophon,  1.  viii.  p.  233. 
f  Diodorus  Siculus,  cited  above,  p.  308,  note  z. 
g  JniUn.  Martyr,    cum  Tryphone   Dialog,  p.  168. 
Montfauc.  torn.  I.  p.  368.     Borlafe,  p.  145. 

confidering 


396  Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 
confideringhim  as  one  of  the  natural  gods. 
Myfteries*  were  inftituted  in  honour  of 
Mithras,  and  human Jacrifices1  were  offered 
to  him.  Now  both  thefe  circumflances, 
as  will  be  fhewn  in  the  fequel,  are  proofs 
of  his  being  regarded  as  a  human  fpirit. 
Upon  what  ground  could  Tiridates  fay, 
that  he  would  worfhip  Nero  equally  with 
Mithras*,  if  the  latter  had  not  been  a 
man  as  well  as  the  former  ?  There  was  a 
king  of  Egypt  of  the  name  of  Meftres, 
who  reigned  in  Heliopolis,  or  city  of  the 
fun\  and  who  is  fuppofed  by  fome  to  be 
the  fame  with  Mithras.  Servius  makes 
Mithras  the  fame  as  the  younger  Belusm. 

Both 

h  Mention  is  made  of  his  myfteries  by  Juftin  Martyr 
in  the  place  referred  to  in  the  preceding  note,  and  many 
other  writers.  See  Schedius  de  Diis  German,  p.  147, 
note  **. 

•  »  See  Hyde,  Rel.  vet.  Perf.  p.  112.     JEl.  Lampr.  in 
Commodor^bacra  Mithriaca  homicidio  vero  polluit. 

k  Eumperinde  ac  Mithram  fe  adoraturum  prcnun- 
ciavit.  Hyde,  c.  4.  p.  112. 

1  Pliny,  Nat.  Hill.  1.36.0.14.  p.  735.  ed.  Harduin. 

m  Belus  minor,,  qui  et  Mithres.  Servius  on  JEn.  I. 
646.  The  Fenians  might  receive  his  wormip  from  the 

AfTyrians, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  397 
Both  thefe  opinions  fuppofe  him  to  have 
been  a  man11. 

I  cannot  conclude  this  head  without 
obferving,  that,  according  to  Mr.  Bry 
ant0,  moft  of  the  temples  amongft  the 
Perfians  were  caverns  in  rocks.  Now, 
according  to  Hydep  and  others,  certain  fa- 
cred  grottos,  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  were 
tombs.  Le  Bruynq  likewife,  and  Theve- 
notq,  confidered  them  as  places  of  burial. 
It  is  probable  therefore  that  the  Perfian 
temples  were  both  temples  and  tombs ; 

AfTyrians,  as  they  did  that  of  Venus  Urania.  Hero- 
dot.  1.  i.  c.  131. 

n  It  may  reconcile  fome  to  this  opinion  to  be  inform 
ed,  that  it  was  holden  by  fo  eminent  a  writer  as  Mo- 
Iheim.  He  has  fupported  it  by  a  train  of  reafoning  dif 
ferent  from  that  here  ufed,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader. 
See  Molheim's  Latin  tranflation  of  Cudworth,  torn.  I. 
p.  421,  in  the  note,  which  is  abridged  by  the  learned 
Brucker,  Hill.  Critic.  Philofoph.  torn.  I.  p.  169,  170. 
Mofheim  confidered  Oromafdes  andArimanius  as  being 
of  human  origin.  According  to  Plutarch,  Mithras  was 
a  mediatory  or  middle  god,  between  them.  If.  &  Ofir. 
p.  369.  E. 

0  Mythol.  v.i.  p.  222,  223. 

P  Rel.  vet.  Perf.  c.  23.     Bryant,  p.  222. 

a  Ap.  Bryant,  p.  224,  225. 

and 


3  9  8         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

and  confequently  the  gods,  worfhipped 
in  them,  were  departed  heroes.  This 
very  much  confirms  what  was  advanced 
above",  concerning  the  objefts  of  wor- 
fhip  in  Perfia. 

2.  When  men  quitted  dens  and  caves, 
and,    for  their  better  accommodation, 
built   boufes,  thefe  became  places  of  fe~ 
pulture,    and    confequently   the    fcenes 
of  the  parentaliay  or  of  thofe  divine  ho 
nours  which  the  family  paid  to  the  ma 
nes  of  their  anceftors5.  Every  one  knows 
that  the  fire-hearths  were  facred  to  the 
houfehold-gods",  the  dii  penates,  or  la~ 
res,  the  founders  and  guardians  of  the 
family. 

3.  Afterwards  men  were  buried  by 
the  fides  of  high-ways'1 ;  and  then  we  read 

of 

*  Ch.  i.  feet  i.  p.  47,  &  feq. 

8  Apud  majoreSj  omnes  in  fuis  domibus  fepeliebaft- 
iur.  Unde  ortum  eft  ut  lares  colerentur  in  domibus, 
Servius  on  ./En.  VI.  152.  See  himalfo  on  V.  64. 

*  See  Plutarch*  Vit*  Alexand.  p.  696.  A*      Comp* 
Vit.  Coriolan.  p.  224.  D. 

u  SeeBos's  Antiq.  of  Greece,  ch.  23.  p.  425,  PaU- 
fanias  takes  notice  of  the  temples  and  fepulchres  on  the 

high-ways, 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World. 

of  the  lares  viales,  who  were  the  ghofts 
of  good  menw;  of  whom  the  traveller 
alked  a  profperous  journey  x,  and  whofe 
monuments  were  defigned  to  remind  him 
of  his  own  mortality7.  Thefe  manes 
were  thought  to  be  highly  pleafed  with 
the  addrefles  of  the  paffengers,  which 
was  one  reafon  why  the  dead  were  bu 
ried  by  the  high-ways2. 

4.  Groves  are  frequently  fpoken  of,  in 
the  hiftory  of  all  mankind,  as  places 
of  religious  worfhip.  As  fuch  they  were 
ufed  by  the  fervants  of  the  true  God% 


high-ways.     Kara  T«?  o&s  Qsuv  eriv  i£%x,    xa» 
ayfyuv  T*po».      Attic.   1.  I.   C.  29.  p.  70. 

w  Manes  piorum,  qui  lares  viales  funt.  Servius  on 
y£n.  III.  302. 

*  Invoco  vos,  lares  viales,  ut  me  betie  juvetis. 

Plautus,  Merc.  v.  2. 

y  Monumentaa  monendo  qusefunt  in  fepulchris.  Et 
ideo  fecundum  viam,  quoprsetereuntes  admoneant  et  fe 
fuiffe,  et  illos  efie,  mortales.  Varro  de  Lingua  Latina, 
1.  v.  Moreftelli  Pompa  feralis,  1.  3.  e.  12.  ap.  Graev. 
torn,  12.  p.  1414. 

a  See  Gather  de  Jure  Manium,  1.2.  c.  13.  Grxv, 
ib.  p.  1191. 

»  Gen..  13.  18.  ch.  ai.  23^ 

perhaps 


4oo         Worfiip  of  human  Spirits 

perhaps  on  account  of  their  folitude  and 
folemnity,  and  the  protection  they  af 
forded  from  the  fcorching  heat  of  the 
fun,  which  was  a  great  recommendation 
of  them  in  hot  climates.  The  Heathens, 
creeled  temples b  and  altars,  and  perfor 
med  the  feveral  rites  of  idolatry,  in 
thick  woods,  which  ftruck  the  worfhip- 
pers  with  awe,  and  gave  the  priefts  an 
opportunity  of  carrying  on  their  impof- 
tures.  The  groves  and  trees  were  confe- 
crated  to  particular  divinities  %  called  by 
their  names d,  and  worfhippede  as  their 

b  Groves  themfelves  are  fometimes  fpokenof  as  tem 
ples,  and  were  perhaps  the  moil  antient  ones* 

c  Arborum  genera  numinibus  fuis  dicata  perpetuo 
fervantur.  Pliny,  Nat.  Hift.  1.  12.  c.  I. 

d  Lucos  ac  nemora  confecrant,  deorumque  nomirii- 
bus  appellant  fecretum  illud,  quod  fola  reverentia  vi- 
dent.  Tacit,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9. 

e  Sanchoniathon  fays,  (ap.  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  I. 
C.  10.  p.  34.  B.)  They  confecrated  the  productions  of  the 
earth,  called  them  gods,  and  worjhipped  them.  Trees 
were  addreffed  as  intelligent  beings,  and  in  the  very 
fame  ftyle  as  the  gods  themfelves  to  whom  they  were 
confecrated.  Haec  facrata  quercus ,  et  quicquid  deorum, 
audiat  fcsdus  a  vobis  ruptum.  Lav.  1.3.  §.25! 

fymbols 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  40  i 
fymbols  and  reprefentatives,  or  as  having 
their  refpeftive  gods  belonging  to  them. 

But  the  fmgle  queftion  before  us  here 
is,  Who  the  gods  themfelves  were  whom 
the  Heathens  worfhipped  in  groves? 
Now  there  is  fcarce  any  point,  in  which 
the  ancients  are  more  generally  agreed, 
than  they  are  in  reprefenting  facred 
groves  as  places  of  fepulturef,  dedicated 
to  the  worfhip  of  hero-gods.  Servius  af- 
ferts,  that  the  groves  were  confidered  as 
the  dwellings  of  the  fouls  of  heroes2. 
Cicero  appeals  to  the  Alban  tombs,  and 
groves,  and  altars".  And  many  inftanees 

f  Mortuorum  fepulchra  erant  fubarboribus,  lucifque 
circumfepta.  La  Cerda,  ad  yEn.  VI.  763.  It  was  a 
law  amongft  the  antient  Etrufcans,  Si  quis  fepulc  brunt 
proprium  non  haluerit,  in  nemorofa  fyl-va  fepeliatur.  E- 
trufc.  Fragm.  1.3.  p.  176.  Sec  Gen.  35.  8.  a  King* 
23.  15,  16. 

s  Dicuntur  heroum  animce  lucos  tcnere.  Servius  on 
JEruI.  445.  Lucum  nunquam  ponit  Virgilius  fine  re- 
ligione:  namque  in  ipfis  habitant  manes  piorum.  Id- 
on  yEn.IH.  302. 

h  Vos,  Albani  tumuli  atque  luci,  vos,  inquam,  im- 
ploro  atque  obteflor,  vofque,  Albanorum  obrutce  arse. 
Crat.  pro  lyiilone,  c.  31. 

D  d 


402         Worflnp  of  human  Spirits 

are  on  record  of  the  dedication  of  woods, 
tbgether  with  priefts  and  altars,  to  the 
fpirits  of  deified  men  and  women1.  Au- 
guftus  confecrated  one  of  thefe  places  to 
the  dii  manes*  in  general. 

Groves  were  confidered  as  the  habita- 
tlons1  of  the  gods,  as  we  are  expreffly  in 
formed,  and  might  have  inferred  from 
their  being  the  places  of  their  burial. 
But  they  neither  were,  not  could  be, 
confidered  as  the  habitations  of  the  fun, 
moon,  and  ftars,  though  they  were  a- 
dapted  to  the  ideas  the  Gentiles  had  form 
ed  of  the  terreftrial  gods.  The  fhade  and 
coolnefs  of  groves1",  the  uncommon  lof- 

*  To  Anchifes,  Virg.  ^En.  V.  760.  To  Juno,  I. 
445.  To  He&or,  III.  302.  To  Egeria,  who  was  the 
wife  of  Numa,  Ovid.Fafti,  III.  262-276.  See  Virg, 
^En.IX.  3,  4.  &VII.  171. 

k  Boiflard.  Topogr.  torn.  I.  p.  50. 

1  Numen  inefl.  Ovid.  Fafti,  III.  295.  Habitat  dens* 
Virg.  JEn.  VIII.  352.  See^En.  VI.  673.  Ovid,  Am. 
1.3.  el.  I.  I.  Lucan,  III.  423  &  feq.  Seneca, ep.  41. 

111  Lzetiflimus  umbra.     Virg.  ./En.  I.  445. 

tinefs 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World. 


403 


tinefs  and  beauty  of  the  trees"  that  com- 
pofed  jthem,  the  fountains0  within  them, 
or  the  rivers  p  that  ran  out  of  them, 
were  intended  and  fuppofed  to  render 
them  an  agreeable  abode  to  the  dead*, 
having  been  the  objects  of  their  delight 
when  living.  Hence  Virgil  defcribes  de 
parted  heroes  as  faying", 

<  Unfettled,  we  remove, 

As  pleaftire  calls,  from  verdant  grove  to  grove  ; 
Stretch'd  on  the  fiow'ry  meads,  at  eafe,  we  lie, 
And  hear  the  filver  rills  run  bubbling  by. 


n  The  temple  of  Mercury  had  (&vfye»  ^otvo^a^ce.}  trees 
that  reached  up  to  heaven,  according  to  Herodotus,  1.2. 
€.138.  The  grove  of  Neptune  had  trees  v»rro}»ir* 
ttuMuq  tnj/cj  TS  &eif*<wov.  Platon.  Critias,  torn.  3.  p. 
117.  ed.  Serran. 

0   Kat   fiupov   TTOI^CT&T"  iv  a\crii  att^f^ftp 

Ayw   paha.    xgfvuy    xafatgcQU.      Homer.  Hymn,  in 
Apoll.     See  Horat.  Art.  poet.  v.  16. 
P  See  Paufanias,  Corinth,  p.  198. 
9  Nemora  enim  aptabant  fepulchris  ;  utinamcenitate 
animae  forent  poft  vitam.    Servius  on  Virg.  y£n.  V.  760. 
*  Nulli  certa  domus.     Lucis  habitamus  opacis, 
Riparumque  toros,  et  prata  recentia  rivis 
Incolimus.     ^Bn.  VI.  673. 

D  d  2  C. 


404         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

5.  Amongft  the  places  confecrated  to 
the  heathen  gods  I  muft  not  omit  to 
mention  the  fummits  of  mountains*  y 
whether  formed  by  nature  or  conftrufted 
by  art4. 

It  has  been  imagined  by  fome,  that 
thefe  places  were  appropriated  to  the 
natural  gods.  But  the  miftake  is  owing 
to  their  not  diftinguifhing  between  the 
natural  gods  and  thofe  ftyled  celejtial. 
Under  the  latter  are  comprehended  fuch 
men  as  were  thought  to  have  afcended 
into  heaven,  of  whom  Jupiter  was  the 
chief.  To  him  every  mountain  was  ef- 
teemed  facred,  according  to  Melanthes". 

9  If  the  reader  be  ignorant  of  the  antient  cuflom  of 
worfhipping  upon  mountains,  he  may  confult  Paufanias, 
p.  175,  196,  197,  892.  Virg.  JEn.  ¥.760.  Potter, 
Gr.  Antiq.  v.  I.  p.  179.  v.  2.  p.  238,  239.  Freytag. 
de  facris  Gentium  Montibus.  Bryant's  Myth.  v.  i.  p. 
119,  235,  &  feq.  Sched.  de  Diis  Germ.  p.  502.  Le 
Clerc  and  Patrick  on  Levit.  xxvi.  30. 

1  As  to  artificial  mounts,  fee  above,  p.  380,  notes  f, 
*,  andGibbons'sHiilory,  v.  3.  p.  83. 

u  De    Sacrifices.      Hay  $E  o^o:   Ttf  A<oj  ogoq  oyo/Aa^£T«*. 

Potter,  v.  i.  p.  179.     Bryant,  v.  i.  p.  238. 

Kings 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  405 
Kings  and  great  men  were  buried  up 
on  mountains*,  (though  ibmetimes  at  the 
feet  of  themx. )  The  places  of  their  burial, 
in  which  they  were  thought  to  refide,  were 
certainly  the  fcenes  of  their  worfhip, 
agreeably  to  the  conftant  cuftom  of  an 
tiquity.  Accordingly  we  find,  that  facri- 
fices  were  offered  to  the  dead,  and  their 
ghofts  confulted,  upon  mountains7. 
The  reafon  affigned  by  the  Gentiles,  for 
worfhipping  the  gods  on  thefe  elevated 
fituations,  determines  who  they  were. 
Hills  and  mountains,  they  faid,  brought 
men  nearer  to  the  gods,  and  thereby  pro 
cured  for  them  the  advantage  of  being 
better  heard2 :  a  reafon  not  at  all  adapted 
D  d  3  to 

w  Deut.  xxxii.    50.     Jolh.  xxiv.  30,   33.     See  the 
next  note. 

*  • Fuit  ingens  monte  fub  alto 

Regis  Dercenni  terreno  ex  aggere  buftum. 

^En.XI.  849. 

Apud  majores,  nobiles,  aut  fub  montibus  aids,  aut  in 
ipfis  montibus,  fepeliebantur.     Servius  in  loc. 
y  See  Spencer  de  Leg.  Hebr.  p.  382. 
z  Tav   ev^ofavv  cny^o^tv  £7rai«c7t,      1C.    ot  ^sof.      Lucian» 

4e  Syr.  Dea,  p.  672.  ed.  Amilel.     This  is  the  reafon 

affigned 


40  6          Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

to  the  idea  entertained  of  the  natural 
gods  :  not  of  the  air  around  them  ;  nei 
ther  of  the  earth  nor  fea  beneath  them  ; 
nor  even  of  the  fun  above  them,  becaufe 
they  conceived  of  that  glorious  luminary 
as  feeing  and  bearing  all  things*.  But,  as 
to  the  gods  taken  from  amongft  men, 
whom  they  might  naturally  imagine  to 
be  incapable  of  hearing  at  a  great  dif- 
tance,  it  could  not  but  be  judged  necef- 
fary  to  get  as  near  to  them  as  poffible, 
for  the  fake  of  being  heard  in  their  reli 
gious  addreffes.  It  is  probably  for  the 
fame  reafon,  that  the  modern  Italians, 
like  the  idolaters  of  old  times,  choofe  to 

alfigned  for  worlhipping  the  gods  upon  mountains  by  the 
Syrians.  That  the  common  opinion  of  the  gods  was 
the  fame  with  theirs  appears  from  the  following  cenfure 
of  it  :  Non  exorandus  eft  aedituus,  ut  nos  ad  aures  fi- 
mulachri,  quaii  magis  exaudiri  poffimus,  admittat. 
Senec.  ep.  41.  p.  453,  ed.  Lipfii.  The  Getes  mull 
have  thought  their  god  quite  out  of  the  reach  of  hear 
ing,  even  from  the  higheft  mountain  ;  for  they  fent  a 
jneflenger  to  him  every  year  to  inform  him  of  their 
wants.  Herodot.  1.  4.  c.  94. 


Horn.  Jl.  Ill,  277. 

worfhip 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  407 
worfhip  their  faints  upon  high  places b.  I 
fhall  only  add,  that  the  gods  were  fup- 
pofed  to  be  highly  delighted  with  emi 
nences  or  mountains0;  and  thefe  fitua- 
tions  were  rendered  ftiil  more  agreeable 
to  them,  by  temples,  and  groves,  and 
fprings,  and  whatever  elfe  could  gratify 
human  ghofts  that  preferved  all  the  dif- 
pofitions  of  their  former  flate.  To  fuch 
ghofts,  therefore,  the  worfhip  upon 
high  places  was  dire6ledd. 

I  have  now  fhewn  to  what  gods  divine 
honours  were  paid,  at  fepulchres,  in 
temples,  in  pyramids,  in  caves,  in  hou- 

b  Sharp's  Letters  from  Italy,  p.  305. 
c  The  Grecian  Jupiter  is  thus  defcribed: 

AvToq  cftv  xoguQycri  xa&^ETo  xt^eV  yuiuv.     Hom.  II.  VIII.  5  I. 

The  pleafure  the  gods  take  in  high  places  is  given  as  the 
reafon  of  conftrufting  temples  upon  them  in  Japan. 
Kaemfer,  Hiitory  of  Japan,  v.  2.  b.  5.  c.  3.  p.  417. 
Bryant,  v.  i.  p.  238. 

d  I  acknowledge,  that  thofe,  who  thought  the  Per- 
fians  and  others  worshipped  only  the  natural  gods,  re- 
prefent  them  as  performing  that  worfhip  upon  moun 
tains  :  but,  if  we  allow  the  fa£t,  that  the  Perfians  wor- 
Ihipped  only  the  natural  gods,  they  muft,  in  worshipping 
them  upon  mountains,  haveadled  upon  principles  diffe 
rent  from  thofe  ilated  above.  But  the  fad  itfelf  is  dif- 
putable. 

D  d  4  fes, 


40  3         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

fes,  by  the  fide  of  high-ways,  in  groves, 
and  upon  mountains.  Thefe  were  the 
places  moft  ufually  confecrated  to  the 
gods  in  ancient  times ;  and  they  in  a 
manner  include  all  the  reft.  And,  as  in 
all  the  fore-mentioned  places  deified  men 
and  women  were  worfhipped,  the  prece 
ding  induction  of  particulars  abundantly 
demonftrates  the  general  prevalence  of 
that  worfhip  over  the  heathen  world. 

V.  The  STATUES  and  IMAGES 
of  the  gods,  in  human  form,  were  re- 
prefentations  of  deified  men  and  women. 

In  the  rude  ages  of  antiquity,  uncar- 
ved  ftones  and  pillars,  boughs  alfo 
and  ftumps  of  trees,  and  other  pie 
ces  of  wood,  were  confecrated  to  the 
gods e ;  to  thofe  ftyled  natural,  as  fome 

maintain, 

e  Clem.  Alexandr.  Stromat.  1.  i.  p.  418.  Maxim. 
Tyr.  Diflert.  38.  p.  401.  ed.  Davif.  Herodian.  1.  5. 
c.  5.  Tacit.  Hift.  1.  2.  c.  3.  Chron.  Alexandr.  p. 
89.  Schedius  de  Diis  German,  p,  505.  —  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  (in  Cohort,  ad  Gentes,  p.  40.)  fays,  Ot 
gray  av-yguTruv  wot/iCHoTzgoi  ft-Aa  I^I/CI/TO  <rregi(pcivv))  x.cc,i  X.IOVOK; 

Qui  hominum   erant  antiquiores  ligna 

erigebant 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      409 

maintain  f,  and  certainly  to  thofe  who 
had  their  original  from  mortality^  But 
thefe  things  were  not  defigned  as  refem- 
blances,  but  merely  as  figns  and  fyrn- 

erigebant  infignia,  et  columnas  ponebant  ex  lapidilus. 
Many  particular  examples  of  both  may  be  found  in  the 
places  here  referred  to. 

f  Sanchonia'chon  referred  to  above,  p.  388,  note  k, 
is  fpeaking  of  the  moft  antient  times.  Of  thofe  times 
JVlaimonides  alfo  fpeaks,  when  he  fays,  Zabiierexerunt 
ftellis  imagines.  Mor.  Nevoch.  pars  III.  c.  29.  p. 
423.  Mede  however  was  of  opinion,  that  both  pillars 
and  images  were,  by  original  inflitution,  peculiar  to  de 
mons,  though,  through  fome  confufion,  they  were  af 
terwards  afcribed  to  other  deities.  Works,  p.  632. 
The  miftake,  if  it  was  one,  might  be  owing  to  their 
referring  to  the  ftars  themfelves  the  worlhip  paid  to  the 
demons,  or  deified  human  fpirits,  that  were  fuppofed  to 
inhabit  them.  No  miftake  will  appear  more  natural, 
if  you  confider  how  often  a  flar  and  it's  prefiding  de 
mon,  or  the  ultimate  and  immediate  objcft  of  worlhip, 
are  confounded  together. 


KOU  rotq  rrjXoii;  7r^ocrxyj/£tv,  xai 
KO.T  ETC?.  Sanchon.  ap.  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev. 
1.  i.  p  35.  B.  Thefe  pillars,  orflones,  were  fet  up  at 
fepulchres.  Homer.  11.  xi.  371.  xvii.  434.  Pindar. 
Nem.  Ode  x.  v.  125.  See  alfo  Paufanias  in  Corin- 
thaic.  c.29.  In  Achaic.  c.  22.  InBceot.  c.  24.  See 
Jikewife  Borlafe's  Antiq.  of  Cornwall,  p.  186  &feq. 

bols, 


4  T  o         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

bols,  of  the  gods.  Neverthelefs,  the 
Greeks,  uriiverfally,  and  from  the  moft 
remote  antiquity,  paid  the  fame  divine 
worfliip  to  thefe  Jigns  as  to  thejlatues 
of  the  gods  h. 

When  the  arts  of  fculpture  and  ftatu- 
ary  were  invented,  a  human  form  was 
given  to  thefe  fubftitutes  of  the  heathen 
gods,  that  they  might  bear  a  refem- 
blance  to  the  objefts  they  reprefented. 
Thofe  objefts,  therefore,  were  men  and 
women,  not  the  elements  and  heavenly 
bodies  j  the  form  of  the  one  no  way  re- 
fembling  that  of  the  other*.  There  is  the 
more  reafon  to  believe,  that  the  images 
of  the  gods  in  human  form  were  intend 
ed  to  reprefent  human  perfonages,  as 
the  cuftom  of  making  thefe  images  had 


Ta  *£  ET»  waXatOT^a  KM  TOJJ  Trctcriv 
Stuv  avrt  ctyahparuy  £»;£oi»  a^yo;  At^ot.  Paufan.  in  A- 
chaicis,  p.  5  79.  Concerning  the  worfliip  of  qonfecra- 
ted  ftones,  the  reader  may  confult  Bp.  Lowth's  note  on 
If.  Ivii.  6. 

1  When  they  aimed  at  making  fome  refemblance  of 
the  fun,  the  Paeonians  reprefented  him  by  a  di(k. 
Maxim.  Tyr.  DifTert.  38.  p.  402. 

it's 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  '    411 

it's  rife  in  Egypt" ;  where  dead  men  were 
worfhipped,  firft  cc  in  perfon,  that  is,  in 
cc  their  mummies,  which,  when  loft,  con- 
cc  fumed,  or  deftroyed,  were  worfhipped 
cc  by  reprefentatiotty  under  an  image  made 
"  with  it's  legs  bound  up,  in  likenefs 
<c  of  the  mummies1/'  The  Perfians,  who 
were  faid  to  worfhip  only,  or  principally, 
elementary  and  fiderial  deities,  had 
no  ftatues  of  their  gods  at  all  -,  and  for 
this  very  reafon,  becaufe  they  did  not 
partake  of  human  nature"1.  Nay,  fome 
nations,  whofe  gods  were  dead  men, 
worfhipped  them  without  ftatues n.  And, 
where  all  the  hero-gods  had  their  ima 
ges,  yet  there  was  even  there  no  image 
of  the  fun  or  moon,  becaufe  their  afpefts 
were  confpicuous  to  all0.  It  is  natural 
to  conclude,  from  thefe  premifes,  that 

k  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  4. 

1  Warburton's  Div.  Legat.  v.  2.  p.  290.  ed.  1755. 
m  See  above,  p.  47,  concerning  the  Perfians. 
n  As  the  Germans,  and  the  Romans  during  the  time 
of  Numa.     Above,  p.  40,  2c;o. 

0  See  the  account  given  of  the  Syrians,  p.  201. 

the 


4 1 2         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirt  ts 

the  reprefentation  of  the  gods  under  hu 
man  figures  is  a  proof  that  thofe  gods 
had  once  been  men.  The  Fathers  had 
very  much  the  fame  view  of  this  fub- 
jeftp. 

Balbusq,  indeed,  fays,  cc  that  from  a 
<c  phyjical  reafon  has  proceeded  a  great 
"  multitude  of  gods,  who,  being  repre- 
<c  fentedin  human  form,  have  fupplied 
<c  the  poets  with  fables'".  Varro  alfo 
was  of  opinion,  that  the  images  of  the 
gods  were  originally  intended  to  direct 
fuch,  as  were  acquainted  with  the  fecret 

P  Quiddenique  ipfa  fimulacravolunt,  quae  aut  mor- 
tuorum  aut  abfentium  monimenta  funt  ?  et  feq.  Lac- 
tant.  Div.  Inftitut.  1.  2.  c.  2.  p.  116,  117.  Et  ideo 
fimulacra  conftituunt,  quae  quia  funt  mortuorum  imagi 
nes,  fimilia  mortuis  funt ;  omnienim  fenfu  carent.  Id. 
ib.  Dum  reges  fuos  colunt  religione,  dum  defunftos 
eos  defiderant  in  imaginibus  videre,  &c.  Minuc.  Fel. 
p.  157,  158.  ed.  Varior.  1672.  Concerning  the  fenti- 
ments  of  Eufebius  on  thisfubjeft,  fee  Div.  Legat.  v.  i. 
p.  97,  98,  in  the  note. 

*  Ap.  Cicer.  Nat.Deor.  1.  2.  €.24.  Aliaquoqueex 
ratione,  et  quidem  phyfica,  magnafluxit  multitude  deo- 
rum  :  qui  induti  fpecie  humana  fabulas  poetis  fuppedi- 
taverunt. 

doctrine, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  413 
doftrine,  to  the  contemplation  of  the 
real  gods,  the  foul  of  the  world,  and  it's 
conilituent  parts  ;  the  mind  which  is  in 
the  body  of  man  bearing  the  neareft  re- 
femblance  to  the  immortal  (and  univer- 
fal)  mindr.  And  Maximus  Tyrius 
largely  defends  the  ufe  of  thefe  images 
upon  the  fame  ground ;  and  pleads,  that, 
of  all  others,  they  are  the  moil  proper 
fymbols  of  the  gods s. 

r  Interpretatlones  phyficas  fie  Varro  commendat,  ut 
dicat  antiques  fTmulachra  deorum,  et  infignia,  orna- 
tufque  confinxiiTe:  quas  cum  oculis  animadvertiiTenthi, 
qui  adiflent  do&rinae  myfteria,  pofTent  animam  mundi 
ac  partes  ejus,  id  eft,  deos  veros,  animo  videre :  quo 
rum  qui  fimulachra  fpecie  hominis  fecerunt,  hoc  videri 
fequutos,  quod  mortalium  animus,  qui  eft  in  corpore 
humano,  iimillimus  eft  immortalis  animi ;  tanquam  fi 
vafa  ponerentur  caufa  notandorum  deorum,,  et  in  Libe- 
ri  sede  cenophorum  fifteretur,  quod  fignificaret  vinum, 
per  id  quod  continet,  id  quod  continetur :  ita  per  fi- 
mulachrum,  quod  formam  haberethumanam  figniiicari 
animam  rationalem,  quod  eo  velut  vafe  natura  ifta  foleat 
contineri,  cujus  nature  deum  volunt  enV,  vel  deos. 
Varro  ap.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.7.  c.  5. 

8  Maxim.  Tyr.  DifTert.  38.  Plotinus  alfo  fpeaks  of 
ftatues  as  defigned  to  fix  men's  thoughts  on  the  foul  of 
the  world.  Ennead.  IV.  1.3.  c.  n.  p.  380. 

This 


414         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

This  platonic  philofopher,  and  alfo 
the  two  Stoics,  Varro  and  Balbus,  were 
zealous  advocates  for  the  phyfical  expli 
cation  of  the  fables,  to  which  they  al 
ways  had  recourfe  when  prefied  with  the 
difficulties  of  their  literal  meaning.  No 
wonder,  then,  that  they  fhould  repre- 
fent  images  in  human  form  as  fymbols 
or  emblems  of  the  natural  gods.  How- 
far  this  was  the  real  cafe  is  a  matter 
that  may  come  under  future  confidera- 
tion.  It  is  fufficient  here  to  obferve, 
that  the  images,  or  human  figures,  of 
which  we  are  fpeaking,  reprefented  real 
men  and  women,  fuch  as  were  fuppofed 
to  be  advanced  to  the  rank  of  gods  and 
goddefles,  and  were  worfhipped  as  fuch  : 
that  thefe  deities  were  the  immediate  ob- 
je£ls  of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip,  not  the 
natural  gods,  to  whom  there  could  be  only 
a  remote  and  ultimate  reference:  that  this 
reference  was  underftood  only  by  thofe 
who  were  inftrufted  in  the  myfteries  of 
the  heathen  religion :  that,  consequently, 

the 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      415 

the  common  people  worshipped  images, 
not  as  figns  or  emblems  of  the  deified  ob- 
je£ls  of  nature,  but,  as  what  they  really 
were,  reprefentations  of  deified  men  and 
women :  and  that  the  civil  theology  was 
founded  upon  this  hypothefis,  or  upon 
the  literal  hiftory  of  thofe  fables  which 
the  philofophers  converted  into  allegory. 
In  a  word,  the  very  objeftion  we  are  con- 
fidering,  inftead  of  overturning,  eflablifh- 
es,  both  the  humanity  of  the  dire£l  objefts 
of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  amongfl  the 
Heathens,  and  the  proof  of  it  drawn 
from  the  reprefentation  of  them  under 
human  figures. 

Thefe  figures,  as  well  as  the  human 
perfonages  whom  they  reprefented,  were 
deemed  gods,  and  worfhipped  as  fuch* ; 
not,  indeed,  on  account  of  the  fenfelefs 
materials  of  which  they  were  compofed, 
but,  as  the  Heathens  alleged,  of  their 

1  Quisenim  dubitat  horum  imagines  confecratas  vul- 
gusorare,  et  publice  colere  ?  Minuc.  Fel.  p.  217.  ed. 
Var.  Colitur  pro  Jove  forma  Jovis.  Ovid.  Ep.  ex 
Ponto,  1.  2.  ep.  viii.  v.  62. 

divine 


4  r  6         WorJJiip  of  human  Spirits 

divine  inhabitants".  The  priefts  pre 
tended,  by  certain  rites  of  confecration, 
to  allure  or  compel  demons,  that  is,  the 
manes  of  the  dead,  to  enter  into,  and  to 
animate,  their  flatues,  and  to  detain 
them  therew.  And,  though  many  ima 
ges  and  ftatues  were  ere6led  to  the  fame 
god,  yet  in  each  of  them  he  was  fuppo- 
fed  to  be  perfonally  prefentx.  Now  this 
idea  of  facred  images,  as  the  fixed  refi- 
dence  of  the  gods,  deftroys  the  fuppofi- 
tion  of  their  being  immediately  reprefen- 
tatives  of  the  elements  or  planets ;  and 
at  the  fame  time  correfponds  to,  and 
confirms,  the  opinion  entertained  of 

u  Eos  in  his  colimus,  eofque  veneramur,  quos  dedi- 
catio  infertfacra,  et  fabrilibus  efficit  inhabitare  fimula- 
cris.  Arnob.  1.  6.  p.  203.  See  Celfus  ap.  Origen. 
contr.  Celf.  1.  7.  p.  373. 

w  Sometimes,  to  prevent  his  defertion,  the  ftatue  of 
the  god  was  chained  to  its  pedeftal.  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  17, 
p.  191.  ed.  WeiTeling. 

x  Infnnulacris  dii  habitant:  fmguline  in  fmgulis  to- 
tis,  an  partiliter  atque  in  membra  divin  ?  Nam  neque 
unus  deus  in  compluribus  potis  eft  uno  tempore  inefie  fi- 
mulacris,  neque  rurfus  in  partes  feclione  interveniente 
divifus. 

them 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  417 
them  by  the  Heathens,  who  made  them, 
as  bodie^  to  be  informed  with  demons, 
or  the  fpirits  of  departed  men,  as  with 
fcit/s7.  And,  as  the  worfhip  of  images 
became  aim  oft  the  univerfal  religion  of 
the  gentile  world,  this  affords  an  unde 
niable  proof  of  the  human  origin  of  the 
heathen  gods,  whofe  bodily  features  thofe 
images  were  faid  to  reprefent*. 

VI.  The  WORSHIP  of  the  heathen 
nations  correfponded  to  their  idea  of  hu 
man  ghofts,  and  was  founded  upon  it. 

All  religious  worfhip  among  the  Gen 
tiles,  and  indeed  among  all  other  peo 
ple,  has  ever  been  adapted  to  the  opinion 
they  formed  of  it's  objeft.  Thofe  Gen 
tiles  who,  by  the  fole  ufe  of  their  rational 
faculties,  formed  juft  conceptions  of  the 
fpirituality  and  purity  of  the  divine  be 
ing,  thought  that  he  was  beft  honoured 
by  a  pure  mind.  Such  of  them  as  regar 
ded  the  luminaries  of  heaven,  as  benefi 
cent  and  divine  intelligences  that  gover 
ned  the  world,  worfhipped  them  with 

Tf  Mede's  works,  p.  632.       *  Eufebius,  ib.  p.  680. 

E  e  hymns 


4 1 8         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

hymns  and praifeszy  in  teftimony  of  their 
gratitude ;  or  by  ktffing  the  hand^  and 
bowing  the  head  a  to  them,  in  acknow 
ledgement  of  their  fovereign  dominion. 
This  feems  to  have  been  the  only  ho 
mage  they  received  from  mankind  in  the 
moft  early  ages  of  the  world.  At  leaft, 
no  other  is  taken  notice  of  in  the  book 
of  Job,  or  in  the  writings  of  Mofes. 
When  dead  men  were  deified,  it  became 
neceflary  to  frame  a  worfhip  adapted  to 
pleafe  and  gratify  human  ghofts,  or  ra 
ther  fuch  fpirits  as  they  were  conceived  to 
be.  And  I  will  here  attempt  to  fhew, 
that  the  eftabliflied  worfhip  of  the  Hea 
thens  was  built  upon  thefe  conceptions, 
and  that  this  circumftance  points  out 
the  human  origin  of  the  more  immediate 
objefts  of  that  worfhip. 

*  Mede's  Works,  p.  636. 

*  If  I  beheld  the fun ,  or  the  moont  -— •  and  my  mouth  hath 
tiffed  my  hand.     Job  xxxi.  26,  27.     The  Ifraelites  are 
forbidden  to  <u)orjbipt  or,  as  the  original  word  imports, 
to  Bend  or  bo<w  down  to,  the  fun,    moon,    and  liars. 
Deuter.  iv.  19. 

Before 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      419 

Before  we  enter  upon  this  argument, 
we  muft  imagine  ourfelves  in  the  fame 
fituation  as  the  ancient  Heathens  were, 
fill  our  minds  with  the  fame  ideas  they 
Lad,  and  recollect  more  efpecially  what 
were  their  notions  of  human  ghofts,  and 
of  their  future  ftate  of  exiftence.  On 
the  correfpondence  of  their  worfhip  to 
thefe  notions  the  force  of  the  argument 
depends. 

The  obvious  diftinflion  between  the 
foul  and  body  of  man,  and  the  perma 
nence  of  the  former  after  the  diflblutiori 
of  the  latter,  could  not  but  be  admitted 
by  all  the  nations  that  worfhipped  the 
dead.  Happy  would  it  have  been  had 
they  gone  no  farther,  except  to  aflert  a 
future  ftate  of  retribution.  But  they 
gave  an  unbounded  fcope  to  their  imagi 
nations.  They  not  only  afcribed  to  fe- 
parate  fpirits,  as  indeed  they  juftly 
might,  all  their  former  mental  affec- 
E  e  2  tions, 


420         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

tionsb,  but  all  the  fenfations0,  appe 
tites,  and  paftions,  of  their  bodily  ilate  ; 
fuch  as  hunger  and  thirft  \  and  the  pro- 
penfities  founded  upon  the  difference 
of  fexes".  Ghofts  were  thought  to  be 
addicted  to  the  fame  exercifes  and  em- 

b  Of  the  parental  affe&ion  we  have  an  amiable  ex 
ample  in  the  ghoft  of  Anchifes.  Virg.  JEn.  VI.  685. 
Proofs  of  the  hatred  ghoils  bore  to  their  enemies,  both 
when  living  and  after  their  deaths,  are  produced  by 
Potter,  B.  4.  c.  8.  p.  261.  I  mail  add  the  following 
paflage  from  Ovid,  in  Ibidem,  v.  139. 

— — —  Nee  mors  mihi  finiet  iras, 
Saeva  fed  in  manes  manibus  armadabit: 
Tune  quoque  cum  fuero  vacuas  dilapfus  in  auras, 
Exanimis  manes  oderit  umbra  tuos. 

See  alfo  Horace,  Carm.  V.  5.  Virg.  ^En.  IV.  384* 
and  the  very  chara&eriftic  defcription  of  the  ghoft  of  A- 
jax,  Homer,  OdyfT.  XI.  542.  and  of  the  other  ghofb 
in  the  fame  book. 

c  Hence  that  prayer,  taken  notice  of  above,  that  the 
earth  might  lie  light  or  heavy  on  the  dead. 

d  This  appears  from  their  being  provided,  as  it  will 
be  (hewn  they  were,  with  the  means  of  gratifying  thefe 
appetites. 

e  Hercules,  though  he  feafted  with  the  immortal 
gods,  was  wedded  to  Hebe.  Homer,  II.  XL  602. 
Some  have  thought  that  ghofts  could  aflume  a  human 
body. 

ployments 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       42 1 

ploytnents  as  had  been  their  delight 
while  menf.  And,  though  they  could 
not  be  felt  and  handled g,  like  bodies 
of  flefh  and  blood,  and  were  of  a  larger 
fizehj  yet  they  had  the  fame  lineaments 
and  features.  Being  an  original  part 
of  the  human  frame,  they  were  wounded 
whenever  the  body  was,  and  retained 
the  impreffion  of  their  wounds1. 

Their  idea  of  men's  future  ftate  of  ex- 
iftence  was  formed  upon  the  model  of  our 
prefent  condition.  They  lent  money  in 
this  world  upon  bills  payable  in  the 

f  Pars  in  gramineis  exercent  membra  palaeftris, 
&c.  Virg.  JEn.  VI.  642. 

•  Quae  gratia  currum 

Armorumque  fuit  vivis,  quae  cura  nitentis 
Pafcere  equos,  eadem  fequitur  tellure  repoftos. 

Id.  ib.  v.  653. 

Multo  magis  reftores  quondam  urbium  recepti  in  ccelum 
curam  regendorum  hominum  non  relinquunt.     Macro- 
bius,  in  Somn.  Scip.  1.  i.  c.  9. 
*  Homer,  OdyfT.  XL  205. 
&  Et  nunc  magna  mei  fub  terras  ibit  imago. 

Virg.  ^En.  IV.  654. 
I  Homer,  Odyff.  XI.  40.     Virg.  &n.  VI.  495. 

E  e  i  next. 


422         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

next*.  Between  both  worlds  there  was 
thought  to  be  an  open  intercourfe  -,  de 
parted  fpirits  beftowing  favours  upon 
their  furvivors,  and  receiving  from  them 
gifts  and  prefents.  Thefe  gifts  were 
fometimes  fuppofed  to  be  conveyed  into 
the  other  world  in  their  own  natural 
form  :  for  they  put  into  the  mouth  of  a 
dead  man  apiece  of  money,  to  pay  Cha 
ron  for  his  paflage  over  Styx;  and  a 
cake,  of  which  honey  was  the  principal 
ingredient,  to  pacify  the  growling  Cer 
berus1.  Thofe  things,  whofe  natural 
outward  form  was  deftroyed,  did  not  al 
together  perifh,  but  pafled  into  the  other 
world.  The  fouls  of  brutes  furvived  thfc 
diffolution  of  their  bodies ;  and  even  in^ 
animate  fubftances,  after  they  were  con- 

k  This  is  related  of  the  Celts  or  Gauls.  Pecunias 
jnutuas,  quaehis  apud  inferos  redderentur,  dare  folitos. 
Pythagoras  approved  the  cuftom  :  for  our  author  adds* 
Dicerem  ftultos,  nifi  idem  braccati  fen fiifent,  quodpal- 
Jiatus  Pythagoras  credidjt,  Valerius  Maximus,  lib.  2, 
£.6.  §.  10. 

4  Bos,  Qr.  Antiq.  p.  410. 

fumed 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  423 
fumed  by  fire,  ftill,  in  fome  degree,  fub- 
fifted;  images  flying  off  from  them, 
which  as  exaftly  refembled  them  as  a 
ghoft  did  the  living  man.  Hence  it  was, 
that,  upon  the  funeral  piles  of  the  dead, 
they  were  accuftomed  to  throw  letters, 
in  order  to  their  being  read  by  their  de 
parted  friends™.  And  being  able,  as 
they  imagined,  to  tranfmit  to  the  dead 
whatever  gifts  they  pleafed,  in  one  form 
or  other ;  food",  and  raiment0,  and  ar 
mour p,  were  either  depofited  in  their 
graves,  or  confumed  in  the  fame  fire 
with  their  own  bodies,  together  with 

m  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  v.  p.  352.  relates  this  cir- 
cumftance  of  the  Gauls. 

*  See  below,  under  facrifices. 

0  Solon  (according  to  Plutarch,  vit.  Solon,  p.  90.  C.) 
made  a  law  to  prevent  the  burying  with  the  dead  more 
than  three  garments.  This  law  was  afterwards  adopted 
by  the  Romans,  and  inferted  in  the  12  tables.  Sum- 
turn  minuito ;  tria,  fi  volet,  ricinia  adhibeto.  The 
clothes  of  the  dead  were  fometimes  thrown  upon  the  fu 
neral  pile.  Bos,  p.  422.  Kennett,  Rom.  Antiq.  p. 

357- 

P  The  arms  of  foldiers  were  thrown  upon  their  pyre. 
Bos,  ch.  22.  p.  422. 

E  e  4  their 


424         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

their  wives  and  concubines1,  their  fa 
vourite  flavesr,  and  brute  animals s,  and 
whatever  elfe  had  been  the  object  of  their 
affeftion  in  life'. 

Accordingly  we  find  the  parrot  of 
Corinna,  after  his  death,  in  elyfium*. 

s  This  is  ftill  a  cuflom  in  fome  parts  of  the  eaft,  and 
it  is  of  great  antiquity.  Evadne  (by  Ovid  called  Iphi- 
as)  threw  herfelf  upon  the  funeral  pile  of  Capaneus, 
uttering  this  prayer  :  Accipe  me,  Capaneu.  Ovid.  Ars 
Am.  I.  3.  v.  21.  Statius,  Thebaid.  1.  12.  v.  801. 
Propertius,  I.  15,  21. 

r  Servi  et  clientes,  quos  ab  iis  dile&os  effe  confta- 
bat,  juftis  funeribus  confe&is,  una  cremabantur.  Cx- 
far,  B.  G.  1.  6.  c.  18.  It  was  the  fame  both  in  Mexi 
co  and  Peru  ;  on  the  death  of  the  emperors  and  other  e- 
minent  perfons,  many  of  their  attendants  were  put  to 
death,  that  they  might  accompany  them  into  the  other 
world,  and  fupport  their  dignity.  See  Robertfon's 
Hift.  of  North  America,  v.  3.  p.  211,  259. 

•  Caefar,  ubi  fupra.  At  the  funeral  of  Patroclus, 
four  horfes  and  nine  favourite  dogs  were  thrown  upon 
thepyre.  Homer,  11.23,  v.  171. 

1  Moiis  fuerat,  ut  cum  his  rebus  homines  fepelirentur 
quas  dilexerant  vivi.  Servius  on  JEn.  X.  827.  See 
alfo  Cafar,  1.  6.  c.  18. 

*  Pfittacus  has  inter,  nemorali  fede  receptus, 
Convertit  voiucres  in  fua  verba  pias, 

Ovid,  Amor.  1.  II.  el.  6.  v.  57. 

Orpheus* 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      425 

Orpheus,  when  in  the  fame  happy  abode, 
appears  in  his  facerdotal  robe,  ftriking 
his  lyre  j  and  the  warriors  were  furnifh- 
ed  with  their  horfes,  arms,  and  chariots, 
which  Virgil  calls  inanesy  empty,  airy,  and 
unfubjlantial)  being  fuch  fhades  and  phan 
toms  of  their  former  chariots  as  theghofts 
themfelves  were  of  menu.  In  a  word, 
whatever  was  burnt  or  interred  with  the 
dead,  their  ghofts  were  thought  to  re 
ceive  and  ufe.  It  is  obfervable,  that, 
as  the  ghofts  appeared  with  the  wounds 
made  in  them  before  their  feparation 
from  the  body,  fo  the  arms,  that  had 
been  ftained  with  blood  before  they  were 
burnt,  appeared  bloody  after  wards w; 
and,  in  like  manner,  the  money-bills 
and  letters,  that  had  been  confumed  in 
the  flames,  were  certainly  thought  to 
retain  the  impreffion  of  what  had  been, 
written  in  them. 

Such  notions  of  feparate  fpirits  can 
indeed  for  the  moft  part  be  confidered 

u  Virg.  JRn.  VI.  645-655,     See  above,  note  P. 
w  Homer,  Od.  XI.  41. 

only 


426          Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

only  as  the  childifh  conceptions  of  untu 
tored  minds,  in  the  infancy  of  the  world, 
or  in  ages  of  grofs  ignorance.  Never- 
thelefs,  being  confecrated  to  the  purpo- 
fes  of  fuperftition,  and  in  length  of  time 
becoming  venerable  by  their  antiquity, 
they  maintained  their  credit,  in  more 
enlightened  ages,  amongft  the  multitude, 
and,  through  policy,  were  patronized 
even  by  thofe  who  difcerned  their  ablur- 
dity. 

This  general  view,  of  the  notions 
which  the  heathens  entertained  of  hu 
man  ipirits,  may  prepare  us  to  receive 
the  farther  account  that  will  be  given 
of  them,  and  thereby  of  the  ground 
of  that  particular  kind  of  worfhip  that 
was  paid  them.  And,  if  the  fame  wor 
fhip  was  paid  to  the  gods  as  to  human 
fpirits,  and  for  the  fame  reafons,  it  will 
appear  highly  probable,  that  both  were 
of  the  fame  nature  originally,  though 
there  was  a  difference  of  rank  between 

them. 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      427 

them.     Let  us  now  examine  fome  of  the 
principal  rites  of  the  ancient  idolatry. 

I  fhall  begin  with  taking  notice  of  the 
facrifices  and  libations  which  made  a  confi- 
derable  part  of  the  heathen  worfliip.  In 
order  to  underftand  the  ground  of  thefe 
rites,  we  muft  confider  in  what  manner 
the  Gentiles  fliewed  their  refpeft  to  dead 
men.  They  fupplied  them,  as  was  ob- 
ferved,  with  fuch  things  as  had  been 
agreeable  or  ufeful  in  life ;  threw  upon 
their  funeral  piles  odours  and  perfumes*, 
and  animals7,  and  made  libations  of 
wine2.  The  daily  and  annual  offerings, 
that  were  afterwards  made  them  at  their 
graves,  were  fimilar  with  thofe  at  their 
funerals,  viz.  flefh,  blood,  water,  wine, 

*  Bos,  Gr.  Antiq.  Part  4,  c.  22.     Their  tombs  alib 
were  ftrewed  with  flowers.     Id.  p.  432. 

y  Homer,  II.  1.  23.  v.  166.  Odyff.  1.  24.  v.  66. 
Virgil,  ^En.  XI.  197.  Herodian.  1.4.  c.  14.  p.  156* 
Oxon.  1704.  Animals  were  flain  at  funerals  partly  to 
fupply  the  ghofts  with  blood,  and  in  part  to  attend 
them  in  the  other  world,  See  page  424,  note  •• 

*  Bos,  ubi  fupra. 

milk, 


428         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

milk,  and  honey*.  In  carrying  them 
meat  and  drink  for  their  fuftenance  the 
farentalia  properly  confiftedb.  The 
ghofts  were  thought  to  come  from  their 
fubterraneous  habitations,  or  from  their 
graves,  to  partake  of  the  entertainment 
provided  for  themc.  Now  the  libations 
and  facrifices,  which  were  offered  to  the 
gods,  were  of  the  fame  kind  with  thofe 

»  Bos,  p.  432,  433.  Potter,  v.  2.  p.  257,  258. 
Comp.Kennett,  Rom.  Antiq.  p.  360,  361.  Guther, 
de  Jure  Man.  1.2.  c.  n.  And  fee  Ovid,  Fafti,  1,  2, 
v.  535.  and  Plautus,  cited  above,  p.  270.  note  f. 
Concerning  the  annual  offerings  of  food  and  raiment, 
made  by  the  Gauls  to  the  manes  of  the  dead,  of  which 
they  were  fuppofed  to  (land  in  need,  fee  Borlafe,  Antiq, 
of  Corn.  p.  114, 

b  Guther  de  Jure  Man.  1.2.  c.  12. 

e  Potter,  v.  2.  p.  251.  Kennett,  Rom.  Antiq.  p* 
361.  Ovid  defcribes  the  common  opinion  in  the  foU 
lowing  lines.  Fafti,  1.2.  v.  565. 

Nunc  animae  tenues,  et  corpora  fun&a  fepulchris, 
Errant :  nunc  pofito  pafcitur  umbra  cibo. 

As  to  the  facrifices  and  libations,  Lucian  fays,  (in  his 
Charon,  five  Contemplantes,  v.  I.  p.  358.)  Verum  illis 
perfuafum  eft  umbras  ab  inferis  reduces,  circum  nido^ 
rem  et  fumum,  quantum  poflunt,  volitando  qasnare,  et 
ex  fpvea  mulfum  bibere. 

i 

appointed 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      429 

appointed  for  the  deadd,  and  both  had 
the  fame  intention.  The  gods  were  re 
galed  with  the  odour  of  incenfe,  and  the 
fruits  of  the  earth ;  they  were  refrefhed 
and  nourifhed  with  the  fumes  of  drink- 
offerings,  and  the  fleams  of  flaughtered 
animals  afcending  from  their  altars'. 
For  the  convenience  of  their  receiving  the 
grateful  and  beneficial  exhalations  from 
the  meat  and  drink  offerings,  the  altars 
were  placed  lower  than  their  ftatues  and 

images. 

d  See  Bos,  Part  i.  c,  6.  or  any  other  writer  upon  the 
facrifices  which  the  Heathens  offered  to  their  gods. 

*  That  the  Gentiles  really  thought  their  gods  were 
gratified  and  fed  by  the  odours,  wine,  blood,  and 
fl-em,  which  were  prefented  to  them  either  in  their  own 
natural  ftate,  or  when  fpiritualized,  as  it  were,  and  re 
fined,  by  fire,  is  evident  from  the  divine  warning  given 
the  Ifraelites  again  ft  conceiving  of  Jehovah  in  the  fame 
unworthy  manner.  Will  I  eat  the  flejh  of  bulls,  or  drink 
the  blood  of  goats  ?  Pf.  I.  13.  The  Fathers  often  re 
proach  the  heathen  gods  with  their  want  of  meat  and 
drink,  and  with  their  intemperate  ufe  of  both.  See 
Arnobius,  p.  229,  230,  236,  249.  And  not  only  did 
the  vulgar  Heathens  fuppofe  their  gods  were  nourifhed 
by  facrifices  ;  but  the  philofophic  Julian  alfo  feems  to 
have  adopted  the  fame  grofs  notion,  and  he  afcribes  it 

to 


43  o         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

images'.  The  oblations  here  fpoken 
of  could  not  be  intended  for  the  ufe 
of  the  fun,  moon,  and  ftars ;  and  we  are 
expreflly  told  that  thefe  celeftial  lumina 
ries  were  nourifhed  by  the  vapours  of  the 
ocean  or  of  frefh  water g.  The  fufte- 
nance  which  idolaters  provided  for  their 
gods  was  perfectly  adapted  to  their  idea 
of  human  ghofts :  which  creates  no 
fmall  prefumption  that  both  were  confi- 
dered  as  having  been  partakers  of  the 
fame  nature. 

Blood  in  particular  was  an  acceptable 
libation  to  ghofts h,  and  more  efpecially 

to  Marcus  Antoninus,  as  is  allowed  by  his  late  panegy- 
rift.  See  Gibbon's  Hift.  v.  2.  p.  363. 

*  Potter,  v.  i.  p.  178,  179. 

«  Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  15.  1.  3.  c.  14. 

h  Adfirmantur  animae  ladle  et  f anguine  deleftari. 
Servius  on  ^En.  III.  ¥.66,67.  That  the  ancient  Hea 
thens  thought  ghofts  were  fond  of  blood  fully  appears 
from  Homer,  OdyiT.  XI.  paflim.  Hence  the  victims 
were  flam  at  their  fepulchres.  Serv.  ib.  The  blood 
was  poured  out  there  upon  the  ground  or  in  trenches. 
Paufanias,  Phocica,  p.  807.  To  want  this  blood  was 
efteemed a  great  calamity.  Potter,  v,  2,  p.  258,  259. 

to 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  43 1 
to  the  ghofts  of  heroes1.  There  is  no 
thing  more  certain  than  this  fa6t,  though 
it  may  feem  ftrange  to  thole  who  do  not 
recolleft  that  the  ancients  drank  bloodk ; 
and  confequently  that,  on  their  princi 
ples,  ftated  above,  men  muft  retain  their 
love  of  it  after  death.  It  might  be  pe 
culiarly  agreeable  to  warriors,  on  ac 
count  of  the  fmgular  ferocity  of  their 
tempers.  And  it's  being  transferred  into 
the  worfhip  of  the  gods1,  as  every  one 

*  They  brought  to  Polydore's  tomb  fanguinis  facri  pa 
ter  as.  ^En.  III.  67.       At  the  funeral  of  Pallas  the  blood 
was  fprinkled  over  the  pile.     Caefo  fparfuros  fanguine 
flammas.     Mr\.  XI.  82. 

*  Quinimo  primis  mundi  aetatibus   fanguis   homimi- 
bus  potus  eraty  fi  fidem  promeretur  Avitus.     Geufms  de 
Viciimis   humanis.    Pars  2.    p.  404.       That  it  was  a 
common  pra&ice  to  drink  blood,  or  eat  the  flefh  of  ani 
mals  while   the  life,  that  is,  the  blood,  was  in  it,  is 
implied  in  the  prohibition  of  it.  Gen.  ix.  4.     Learned 
men  have  Ihewn,  that  eating  raw  flefti,  cut  off"  while 
the  creature  was  living,  was  an  ancient  rite  of  idolatry. 
See  Maimon.   More  Nev.  pars  III.  c.  48.     Selden,  de 
JureN.  &G.  VII.   i. 

1  To  the  celeftial  or  fupernal  gods  the  blood  was  offer 
ed  upon  altars  (Potter,  v.  i.  b.  2.  ch.  4.  p.  203.  Comp. 
Virg.  JEn.  VIII.  106.)  for  the  fame  reafon  that  it  was 
poured  upon  the  ground  to  the  infernal,  viz.  in  order  to 
it's  being  near  to  the  deity  who  was  to  partake  of  it. 

knows 


43  2         WorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 

knows  it  was,  naturally  leads  us  to  coil- 
fider  thofe  gods  as  deified  heroes,  who 
ftill,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Heathens, 
preferved  their  relifh  of  it,  as  they  did 
of  every  thing  elfe  they  had  loved  before* 
The  fhedding  of  human  blood,  to  ap- 
peafe  the  heathen  deities,  is  a  new  proof 
of  their  terreftrial  origin.  The  brute  a- 
nimals,  which  the  Gentiles  facrificed  to 
their  deities,  were  not  always  fuch  as 
were  agreeable  to  them  •,  they  were  often 
fuch  as  were  odious,  and  whofe  deftruc- 
tion  gave  them  pleafurem.  It  was  the 
fame  as  to  men.  Favourite  flaves  fuffer- 
ed  death  that  they  might  ferve  their  maf- 
ters  in  another  life.  Conquered  enemies 
were  killed  with  a  different  view,  to  fa- 
tiate  the  malice  and  revenge  of  the  ma 
nes  of  warriors.  The  refinement  of  mo 
dern  times,  owing  principally  to  the  fpi- 
rit  of  mildnefs  and  humanity  which  the 

m  Ut  cum  Cereri  porcam,  Baccho  capram,  mafta- 
bant :  quorum  ilia  fegeti,  hsec  vitibus,  infefta  eft.  Pot 
ter,  Comment,  in  Lycophronis  Caffand.  v.  77. 

chriftian 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  433 
chriftian  religion  has  diffufed  through 
the  nations,  makes  it  difficult  for  us  to 
conceive  how  much  cruelty  entered  into 
the  compofition  of  heroes  in  the  rude 
and  barbarous  ages  of  antiquity.  We 
may,  perhaps,  form  fome  imperfeft  idea 
of  it  from  the  favages  in  North  Ameri 
ca,  who  rack  their  invention  in  order  to 
put  their  captives  in  war  to  a  lingering 
death  in  the  greateft  poffible  torment ; 
which  they  fuffer  amidft  the  joy  ful  acclama 
tions  of  their  enemies.  The  paflions,which 
men  difcovered  in  life,  the  ancients,  as 
we  have  feen,  afcribedto  them  after  death; 
and  confequently  conceived  of  the  dead 
as  cruel  and  vindiftive,  as  envy;ngn  the 
happinefs,  and  delighting  in  the  mifery, 
of  thofe  who  had  offended  them.  Hence, 
I  apprehend,  it  is  that  idolaters  pra£U- 
fed  all  manner  of  cruelties  upon  them- 

n  The  human  paffion  of  envy  is  often  afcribed  to  the 
gods.  Potter,  v.  2.  p.  221.  Nothing  could  more 
mortify  a  human  ghoft,  when  under  the  influence  of  ma 
lice  and  refentment,  than  the  profperity  of  a  hated  ob 
ject 

F  f <w  felves 


434  Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
felves  and  one  another,  in  the  worfhip 
of  Diana,  Bellona,  and  other  deities, 
thatj  by  the  fight  of  their  fufferings, 
thefe  deities  might  at  length  be  induced  to 
pity  and  fpare  them.  We  are  expreffly 
informed,  that  the  blood,  which  flowed 
from  thofe  wounds  which  the  Pagans 
made  in  their  own  flefh,  was  thought  to 
appeale  the  gods  ghofts0. 

It  is  with  the  fame  view  that  men  were 
put  to  death0.  The  ghofts  of  fuch  as  were 
flain  in  war,  or  who  flew  themfelves,  were 
fuppofed  to  be  ftimulated  by  the  ftrongeft 
revenge p,  and  could  not  be  appeafed  but 
by  the  deftruclion  of  their  enemies. 
We  are  certain,  therefore,  that  human 

0  Varrodicit  mulieres  in  exequiis  et  lu&u  ideo  folitas 
ora  lacerare,  ut  fanguine  oltenfo  inferis  fatisfaciant : 
quare  etiam  inftitutum  eft,  ut  apud  fepulchra  et  vi&imas 
caedantur.  Apudveteres,  etiam  homines  interficieban- 
tur.  Servius  on^En.III.  67.  Quid  poteft  efle  hac  pie- 
tate  clementius,  quam  mortuis  humanas  vidimas  immo- 
lare?  Laftant.  1.  5.  c.  10. 

P  Nothing  pierced  Dido  with  fo  keen  anguifh,  in, 
the  article  of  death,  as  the  thought  of  perilhing  unre- 
venged.  Mwiemur  inuha  ?  Virg,  ^Bn.  IV.  659. 

viftims 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       435 

vi£Hms  perfectly  correfponded  to  the 
corrupt  paffions  afcribed  to  the  ghofts 
of  men. 

Accordingly  we  find,  in  fa£t,  that 
the  manes  of  warriors  and  heroes  were 
propitiated  with  human  vi6tims  at  their 
funerals.  Achilles  facrificed  twelve  Tro 
jan  heroes  at  the  funeral  of  Patroclus, 
and  then  called  upon  him  to  rejoice,  even 
in  the  gloomy  realms  of  Pluto,  at  their  be 
ing  burnt  in  the  fame  flames  with  his  own 
corpfeq.  Polyxena  was  flain  upon  the  tomb 
of  Achilles  to  appeafe  his  ghoft,  on  which 
fubject  the  Hecuba  of  Euripides  is  foun 
ded.  And  jEneas,  notwithftanding  com- 
paffion  made  fo  diftinguifhing  a  part 
of  his  character,  referved  feveral  young 
captives  to  offer  them  as  victims  to  the 
manes  of  Pallas",  who  was  flain  by 
F  f  2  Turnus. 

x.a,i  uv  A'iSao 


Homer.  II.  XXIII.  179. 
r  --  —  —  Sulmone  creates 
Quatuor  hie  juvenes  ;  totidem,  quos  educat  Ufcns^ 

Viventis 


436         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Turnus.  He  afterwards  refufed  to  fpare 
Magus,  who  earneftly  begged  his  life, 
becaufe,  as  he  alleged,  the  fhade  of  An- 
chiles  demanded  his  death5,  even  though 
no  prior  enmity  had  fubfifted  between 
them.  And  the  reafon  which  ^Eneas 
affigned  for  killing  Turnus,  a  proftrate 
fuppliant  for  mercy,  was,  that  the  ghoft 
of  o  Pallas,  in  revenge  for  his  own  death, 
required  the  facrifice  of  his  blood1. 
If  fuch  were  fuppofed  to  be  the  temper 
of  fo  amiable  a  hero  as  Pallas,  there 
is  reafon  to  conclude,  that  warriors, 
who  had  been  long  accuftomed  to 
the  havoc  of  the  human  fpecies, 
would  be  thought  to  require  a  more  am- 

Viventis  rapit,  inferias  quos  immolet  umbris, 
Captivocjue  rogi  perfundat  fanguine  flammas. 

Virg.  JEn.  X.  517. 
»  Id.  ib.  v.  533. 

«  — *- Pallas  te,  hoc  vulnere  Pallas, 

Immolat,  et  poenam  fcelerato  ex  fanguine  fumit. 

&n.  XII.  948. 

The  forementioned  facrifices  are  to  be  considered  mere 
ly  as  the  effect  of  the  cruel  fuperilition  of  the  times, 
and  are  no  reflection  upon  ./Eneas,  who  acted  from  a 
pious  care  to  placate  the  dead. 

pie 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      437 

pie  vengeance,  and  to  take  more  fatisfac- 
tion  in  the  punifliment  of  offenders,  or 
even  in  the  fufferings  of  the  innocent, 
from  cruelty  of  difpofition.  The  com 
bats  of  the  gladiators  were  properly  fu 
neral  rites",  and  the  blood  fpilt  in  them 
was  defigned  to  appeafe  the  manes  of  the 
dead*.  Thefe  fafts  are  undeniable  proofs 
that  human  facrifices  were  offered  to  de- 
ceafed  heroes,  and  were  adapted  to  their 
prefumed  difpofition. 

The  fame  cruel  rite,  which  was  cele 
brated  at  the  funeral  of  heroes,  was  per 
formed,  ftatedly  or  occafionally,  in  the 
worftiip  of  the  gods,  and  upon  the  fame 
ground,  a  fanguinary  and  revengeful 

u  Plutarch  calls  the  combats  envrapiy$  uyuvas.  Vit. 
Coriolani,  p.  218.  F.  The  combatants  were  called 
bujluarii,  becaufe  they  fought  at  the  buftum  or  fepul- 
chre  of  the  dead. . 

w  The  captives  fent  to  the  funeral  of  Junius  Brutus, 
inflead  of  being  (lain  in  the  ufual  manner,  were  order 
ed  to  fight.  Servius  on  JEn.  III.  67.  This  method 
of  deftroying  them  had  the  fame  intention  as  the  former, 
but  was  more  fuitable  than  that  to  the  temper  and  policy 
of  a  warlike  people,  and  ferved  to  inure  them  to  fcenes 
of  blood  and  daughter. 

F  f  3  difpofition, 


438          Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

difpofition.  It  has  indeed  been  aflerted, 
that  the  natural  gods  were  the  obje£ls 
of  this  worfhip.  Let  us  therefore  fee 
whether  the  fafts  on  record  do  not  prove 
that  thedireft  and  immediate  objeftsof  it 
were  human  fpirits.  Only  I  would  firft 
of  all  obferve,  that  thofe,  who  offered  thefe 
coftly  viftims  to  heroes,  were  not  likely  to 
withhold  them  from  the  fame  heroes  when 
they  were  exalted  to  the  rank  of  gods. 

To  whom  were  more  human  facrifices 
offered,  in  Phenicia,  at  Carthage,  and 
other  places,  than  to  that  monfter  of  cru 
elty,  Saturn,  who  not  only  made  war 
upon  his  father,  and  maimed  him,  but 
facrificed  his  own  children  to  himx? 
This  barbarity  to  his  offspring  is  affign- 
ed  as  the  reafon  why,  after  his  death 
and  deification,  he  was  appeafed  with 

*  Sanchoniathon,  ap.  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  i.  c.  38, 
40.  1.  4.  c.  16.  Porphyr.  de  Abitinent.  1.2.  0.56. 
Eufeb.  de  Laudibus  Conftant.  p.  756.  Diodor.  Sic.  1, 
30.  p.  415.  torn,  2.  ed.  WelT,  Marfliam,  Chronicus 
Canon,  p.  76,  77, 

th« 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      439 

the  facrifice  of  children y.  The  ancient 
philofophers  fearched  for  a  phyfical  in 
terpretation  of  Saturn*,  and  a  learned 
modern3  would  willingly  underftand  by 
him  the  god  of  light ;  but  it  has  been  al 
ready  (hewn,  that  hiftory  reprefents  him 
under  a  human  character.  His  worfhip 
was  founded  upon  that  hiftory  as  literal 
ly  underftood  by  the  people2,  and  was  a- 
dapted  to  his  bloody  difpofition.  His 
fon,  Jupiter,  who  alfo  was  worfhipped 
with  human  blood b,  is  ftyled  the  only 

y  Nam  Saturnus  filios  fuos  non  expofuit,  fed  voravit. 
Merito  ei  in  nonnullis  Africa?  partibus  a  parentibus  in 
fantes  immolabantur.  Minuc.  Felix,  p.  291.  ed.  Var. 
—cap.  30.  p.  151.  ed.  Davif.  Cum  propriis  nliis  Sa 
turnus  non  pepercit,  extraneis  ubique  non  parcendo 
perfeverabat,  et  feq.  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  8.  p.  9. 
ed.  Rigalt.  Bryant,  Obfervations,  p.  279,  280. 

2  Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  1.2.  c.  24. 

a  Bryant's  Obferv.  p.  280. 

b  Tertullian.  Apol.  p.  9.  Minuc.  Felix,  c.  30. 
and  the  notes  of  Davis,  p.  153.  Laftant.  1.  i.  c.  21. 
An  infant  was  flam  upon  the  altar  of  Jupiter  Lycasus. 
Paufanias,  Arcad.  1.2.  p.  600.  Jupiter  Latialis  alfo 
was  worfhipped  with  human  blood.  La&ant.  1.  i.  c.  21. 

F  f  4  fon 


44°         Worjbip  of  human  Spirits 

fon  and  heir  of  his  father  in  cruelty6. 
OJiris,  called  alfo  Bufiris,  was,  like  Ju 
piter,  a  great  conqueror,  in  an  age  when 
conqueft  and  cruelty  were  clofely  allied ; 
and  to  him  ftrangers  were  facrificed 
at  his  tombd.  Bacchus  was  worfhipped 
with  the  cruel  rite  of  which  we  are  fpea- 
king  under  the  title  of  Omeftes,  the  de 
vour  er*.  Captives  in  war  were  devoted 
to  death  in  honour  of  Marsfy  who,  ac 
cording  to  Orpheus,  'was  always  contami 
nated  with  Jlaughter,  and  always  delighted 

e  Q  Jovem  — — — folum  patris  filium  de  crudelitate ! 
Tertullian.  ubi  fupra. 

d  ^Egyptio  Bufiridi  ritus  fuit  hofpites  immolare. 
Minuc.  Fel.  c.  30.  Compare  what  Plutarch  fays  con 
cerning  burning  live  men  in  Egypt.  De  If.  et  Ofir.  p. 
380.  Men  with  light  or  red  hair  were  facrificed  at  the 
tomb  of  Ofiris.  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  99. 

e  Plutarch,  Vit.  Themift.  p.  119.  A. 

f  Herodot.  L  4.  c.  62.  Caefar,  Comment.  1.  6.  c. 
1 6.  See  alfo  Tomafinus  de  donariis  veterum,  c.  40. 
and  Tacitus,  Annal.  1.  13.  c«  57. 

with 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      441 

with  Luman  blood*.  And  Diana*,  who 
was  void  of  all  the  tendernefs  of  her  fex, 
whofe  chief  pleafure  confifted  in  the 
purfuit  and  flaughter  of  brute  animals, 
and  to  whom  the  fhows  of  wild  beafts, 
fighting  with  one  another  or  with  men, 
were  confecrated,  had  her  altars  ftained 
in  the  fame  manner  as  the  god  of  war. 
This  goddefs,  as  well  as  Mars  and  Jupi 
ter,  belonged  to  the  clafs  of  the  twelve 
greater  divinities  who  were  translated 
from  earth  to  heaven.  To  Juno,  who 
alfo  was  one  of  that  number,  an  oracle 
recommended  the  facrifice  of  a  virgin 
annually,  in  order  to  flop  a  peftilence* 
which  doubtlefs  it  was  thought  fhe  had 
fent. 

To  the  foregoing  examples  more  may 
be  added.     I  muft  not  omit  to  mention 


Orpheus,  Oper.  p.  264.  ed.  Gefner. 
h  Virg.  ^n.  II.   116.   Servius  in  loc.     Laftant,  1.  1. 
C.  2.     See  note  %  below;  and  Hyginus,  Fab.  261. 
4  Plutarch,  Parallel,  p.  314,  C.  D. 


442         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

Hercules*,  who  having  through  life  made 
havoc  of  the  human  fpecies,  it  was  pre- 
fumed  he  would  be  pleafed,  after  death, 
with  feeing  human  viftims  bleeding  or 
burning  upon  his  altars.  Iphigenia1 
could  not  but  refent  her  undergoing  a  vi 
olent  death  to  propitiate  Diana  >  and 
therefore  might  well  be  fuppofed  to  re 
ceive  fatisfa£tion  from  having  her  own 
ghoft  atoned  in  the  fame  manner.  The 
northern  rfhur*,  or  T#0r,  (the  fame, 
probably,  with  Taranis,)  Teutates^  (or 
Mercury  %)  and  Hefus\  (fuppofed  by 
fome  to  be  Mars  himfelf,)  had  probably 
deluged  the  earth  with  human  blood  be 
fore  it  was  offered  to  them  in  facrifice. 

k  Pliny,  1.  36.  c.  3.     Marfliam,  p.  288,  289. 

1  Virg.  -&n.  II.   116.     Herodot.  1.  4.  c.  103. 

ra  To  Thur  fanguinem  maftabant  hominum.  Hif- 
toriar  Normandorum  fcriptores  antiqui.  Paris,  1619. 
p.  62. 

n  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  9. 

°  Et  quibus  immitis  placatur  fanguine  diro 

Theutates,  horrenfque  feris  altaribus  HefuSj 

Et  Taranis  Scythica;  non  mitior  ara  Dianae. 

Lucan.  1.  i.  v.  44. 

This 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      445 

This  lift  might  have  been  fwelled  with 
the  names  of  Mithras*  and  other  gods; 
but  I  fhall  only  obferve,  that  the  afto- 
nifliing  cruelty  of  Froe  and  Roftatus  is 
expreffly  affigned  as  the  reafon  of  their 
being  propitiated  with  human  vi6limsq. 

From  the  whole  of  what  has  been 
offered,  with  refpe<5t  to  thefe  viftims,  it 
appears,  that  the  ground  of  offering 
them  was  the  cruel  and  revengeful  difpo- 
fition  of  the  objefts  of  them r :  that  they 

correfponded 

P  Mithras  was  worfhipped  in  Egypt  as  well  as  ia 
Perfia ;  and  Socrates  relates,  that,  in  the  temple  at  A- 
lexandria,  in  which  his  myileries  were  celebrated,  the 
Gentiles  avSgwwa?  xur&vov,  facrificed  mtn.  Hiftor.  Ec- 
clef.  1.  3.  c.  2.  p.  173.  It  is  to  this  author  that  the 
reference  mould  have  been  made  above,  p.  396.  note1, 
rather  than  to  ^Elius  Lampridius. 

*  Concerning  Froe,  Olaus  Magnus  fays,  1.  3,  c.  4. 
p.  101.  Cui  tandem  in  numerum  deorum  relato,  quia 
deus  fanguinis  haberetur,  furvse  hoftia;  immolabantur. 
The  fame  writer  gives  the  following  account  of  Rofta 
tus  :  Cujus  ftupenda  immanitas  humani  fanguinis  facri- 
^icio  ita  placari  voluit,  ut  fibi  illorum,  quos  cul tores  fui 
oppreffuri  effent,  animasdedicarent. 

r  This  is  confirmed  by  the  teftimony  of  Sanchonia- 
who  fays,  that,  in  great  national  calamities,  it 

was 


444         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 
correfponded   entirely    to   the   fuppofed 
character  of  the  ghofts  of  warriors  and 

heroes, 

was  cuftomary  to  facrifice  the  deareft  children  of  the 
nobles  TO«J  Ti/*0go*c  £ai/*o<ri.  Ap.  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  4. 
p.  156.  D.  The  e vil  deities  were  diftinguifhed  from 
the  good  by  a  different  worlhip ;  according  to  Labeo, 
ap.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  2.  c.  2.  Numina.  bona 
a  numinibus  malis  ifta  etiam  cultus  di-verjitaie  diftingu- 
untur,  ut  malos  deos  propitiari  casdibus  et  triftibus  fup- 
plicationibus  aflerat :  bonos  autem  obiequiis  iaetis  atque 
jucundis.  In  the  Diflertation  on  Miracles,  p.  249.  it 
was  faid,  what,  I  prefume,  has  been  fully  proved,  "  that 
**  the  gods,  worfhipped  by  human  facrifices,  were  the 
(f  great  warriors  who,  in  their  mortal  ftatei  delighted 
"  in  the  flaughter  of  the  human  race."  To  this  it  has 
been  objected,  by  Mr.  Fell,  p.  66.  that  there  is  not  one 
injfance  to  be  found  on  record,  of  men  raifedtodi-vine  honours, 
t>y  any  -people y  becaufe  of  their  paft  delight  in  the  jlaughter 
ef  their  ownfpecies  ;  and  TET  this  is  here  (that  is,  in  the 
DifTertation)  ajjlgned  to  be  the  'very  reafon  fvohy  thofe  gods 
(the  idols  ofCanaan)  were  nvorjhipped  with  human  facrifices. 
It  clearly  appears,  from  this  language,  that  the  gen 
tleman  did  not  perceive  the  obvious  difference  there  is 
between  the  reafon  of  raifing  men  to  divine  honours, 
that  is,  (as  I  underftand  him,)  of  deifying  them,  and 
honouring  them  with  fome  kind  of  divine  worlhip,  and 
thereafon  of  worfhipping  them,  when  deified,  with  one 
fpecies  of  divine  worihip  rather  than  another.  Each 
god  was  honoured  with  peculiar  ceremonies.  Hence 
Plutarch  conjectures,  that  Matuta  was  the  fame  with 
Leucothea,  from  the  famenefs  of  their  rites.  Vid,  Ca- 

mill. 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      445 

heroes,  and  of  hero-gods :  that  they 
were  in  fa£l  offered  both  to  heroes  and 
to  fuch  gods  as  had  been  men,  and,  as 


mill.  p.  131.6.  The  facrifices  that  were  offered  to  diffe 
rent  gods  were  different,  (as  we  have  juft  now  feen  from 
Labeo,  and  Eufebius  has  ihewn  at  large,  [Praep.  Ev.  1. 
4,  c.  9.]  and  indeed  as  every  one  muft  know  who  is  not 
a  perfect  ftrangerto  the  fubjeft,)  agreeably  to  the  diffe 
rence  of  their  refpe&ive  difpofitions.  The  domeftic  and 
friendly  gods  ghofts  were  gratified  with  wine,  milk, 
and  frankincenfe,  (Ovid,  Fafti,  1.  ii.  533-540.) 
though  the  indignant  and  revengeful  fpirit  of  a  warrior 
could  not  be  appeafed  without  human  blood.  Revenge 
and  cruelty,  however,  were  not  the  reafon  of  his  being 
raifed  to  divine  honours,  or  of  his  being  accounted  a 
god  ;  nor  did  my  language  imply  more  than  their  being 
the  reafon  of  that  peculiar  kind  of  wormip  which  was 
paid  him  by  thofe  who  were  previoufly  perfuaded  of  his 
divinity.  My  reafoning,  in  the  place  referred  to,  was 
agreeable  to  that  of  the  ancients,  who,  when  doubtful 
who  any  particular  god  was,  formed  their  judgement 
of  him  by  the  nature  of  his  wormip.  •'  If  the  gen 

tleman  meant  to  fay,  what  alone  could  render  his  ob- 
je&ion  pertinent,  that  there  is  not  one  inftance  on  re 
cord  of  men  being  worfhipped  with  human  facrifices  for 
the  reafon  1  had  affigned,  he  mould  have  had  a  better 
acquaintance  with  antiquity  before  he  ventured  on  fuch 
an  aflertion. 

far 


446         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

far  as  we  know,  to  fuch  gods  alone*, 
So  that,  when  the  only  circumftance, 
related  of  any  particular  deity,  is,  that 
he  was  worfhipped  with  human  facrifi- 
ces,  we  may  reafonably  conclude,  that 
he  was  originally  of  the  race  of  man. 
And,  as  thefe  rites  were  univerfally* 

*  It  has  indeed  been  faid,  by  fome  of  the  ancients, 
that  human  victims  were  in  Egypt  offered  to  the  fun. 
It  was  very  natural  for  thofe  to  run  into  this  miftake  who 
explained  the  hiflory  of  the  gods  phyfically.  Human 
victims,  we  havefeen,  were  offered  to  Ofiris ;  andOfi- 
ris,  phyfically  underftood,  was  the  fun.  Some  of  the 
ancients  would  the  more  readily  fubftitute  the  one  for 
the  other,  as,  in  their  opinion,  there  was  a  real  corref- 
pondence  between  the  difpofitions  of  heroes  and  the 
qualities  of  the  fun.  But  I  queftion  whether  there  were 
any,  however  fond  they  might  be  of  applying  the  hiito- 
ry  of  the  gods  to  natural  objects,  who  would  not  allow, 
that  human  facrifices  were  directly  and  immediately  of 
fered  only  to  hero-gods. 

1  This  is  affirmed  by  Pliny,  1.  30.  c.  i.  cited  above; 
and  has  been  proved  to  be  true  by  many  learned  writers, 
ancient  as  well  as  modern  :  fuch  as  Porphyry,  de  Ab- 
ftinent.  1.2.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Cohort,  ad  Gent. 
p.  36.  ed.  Potter.  Eufebius,  Przep.  Ev.  1.  4.  c.  16. 
Geufius,  de  Victimis  humanis,  paffim  ;  and  Mr.  Bry 
ant,  in  his  Obfervations,  p.  267.61  feq. 

pratlifed 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      44.7 

pra&ifed  in  all  the  heathen  nations,  they 
afford  a  full  proof  of  the  univerfal  preva 
lence  of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits. 
Many  of  the  gods  here  enumerated  were 
the  principal  objefts  of  pagan  devotion0. 
There  were  other  w  rites  of  worfhip, 
befides  thofe  hitherto  fpecified,  which 

clearly 

*  When  MefTapus  gave  a  mortal  wound  to  king  Aulef- 
tes,  he  exclaimed  :  H<zc  magnis  me/tor  data  <viftima  Jivis. 
-ffin.  XII.  296. 

w  The  heathen  religion  was  as  remarkably  diflin- 
guifhed  by  it's  licentioufnefs  and  pollution  as  by  it's  cru 
elty.  Drunkennefs  was  an  efTential  part  of  the  worfhip 
of  Bacchus,  and  enjoined  by  law  even  at  Athens.  Pla 
to  de  Legibus,  1.  I.  p.  570  ed.  Ficini,  &  p.  777  ed. 
Serrani.  It  generally  accompanied  the  facrifices  and 
Jfolemnities  of  the  other  gods.  Proftitution  was  a  reli 
gious  rite  common  to  all  nations  ;  and  not  owing,  in 
general,  to  a  profligacy  of  character,  but  to  a  real  per- 
fuafion  of  it's  being  an  acceptable  facrifice  to  the  gods. 
Even  fodomy,  and  beftiality,  and  other  enormities, 
made  a  part  of  the  pagan  ritual,  in  Phenicia  more  efpe- 
cially.  It  would  draw  out  the  article  of  worjhip  to  too 
great  a  length,  to  produce  the  evidence  of  thefe  facls  In 
this  place,  and  to  mew  from  what  principles  they  pro 
ceeded,  which  may  be  explained  hereafter.  It  is  fuffi- 
cient  to  obferve,  at  prefent,  that  the  vices  here  fpeci 
fied  are  peculiar  to  the  human  fpecies,  and  were  in  fad 

pracliied 


448         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
clearly  point  out  the  mortal  origin  of  the 
gods.      I   fhall  take   notice  of    three: 
mourning^  banquets^  and  games. 

Mournings,  and  all  the  figns  of  the 
moft  extravagant  grief,  fuch  as  lamen 
table  cries  and  bodily  lacerations,  were 
the  moft  facred  ceremonies  of  pagan 
worfhip*.  Now  thefe  rites  of  idolatry 

praftifed  in  the  worfhip  of  fuch  gods  as  had  once  belonged 
to  it.  They  were  praftifed  in  imitation,  as  well  as  in  ho 
nour,  of  the  gods.  The  rude  heroes  of  antiquity,  what 
ever  fervice  they  might  do  their  country  by  their  prow- 
efs,  or  to  mankind  in  general  by  their  ufeful  inventions, 
laid  no  reflraint  upon  their  paflions ;  and,  as  they  were 
believed  to  have  more  of  divinity  in  them  than  other  men, 
their  vices  were  confecrated  as  well  as  their  perfons.  When 
they  were  exalted  into  gods,  they  were  thought  to  re 
tain  the  fame  difpofitions.  The  early  Chriftians  re 
proach  them  with  every  fpecies  of  impurity ;  and  fo  do 
the  Heathens  themfelves,  many  of  whom  were  ever  rea 
dy  to  plead  their  examples  as  an  excufe  for  all  the  vices 
that  the  bafeft  and  vileft  of  men  could  commit. 

x  In  adytis  habent  idolum  Ofiridis  fepultum  ;  hoc  an- 
nuis  luftibus  plangunt,  radunt  capita,  ut  miferum  ca- 
fum  regis  fui  turpitudine  dehoneftati  defleant  capitis  ; 
tundunt  peclus,  lacerant  lacertos,  veterum  vulnerum 
refecant  cicatrices,  ut  annuis  lu&ibus  in  animis  eorum 
funeftae  acmiferandae  necis  exitium  renafcatur.  Julius 
Firmicus,  p.  4,  5.  See  alfo  Spencer,  Leg.  Hebr.  p. 
574,  580. 

were 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      4.4,9 

were  the  very  fame  with  thofe  praftifed 
at  funerals.  It  was  cuftomary  with  the 
Heathens,  at  the  death  of  their  rela 
tions,  to  make  the  moft  mournful  la 
mentations,  to  rend  their  clothes,  t® 
cut,  lance,  and  tear,  their  flefh Y. 
Thefe  doleful  cries  and  cruel  lacerations 
were  carried  to  fuch  excefs  at  Athens,  a 
city  greatly  addicted  to  fuperftition  and 
idolatry,  that  it  became  neccffary  to 
prohibit  them  by  law2.  They  are  not  to 
be  confidered  merely  as  expreffions  of 
grief  for  the  perfonal  lofs  which  furvi- 
vors  fuftained  by  the  death  of  valuable 
relations  j  they  were  principally  defigned 
for  the  benefit  of  the  dead  themfelves  5  a 
matter  that  requires  to  be  explained. 

7  See  Bos,  Antiq.  of  Greece,  p*  4.  ch.-2i,  Levit. 
xix,  28.  xxi.  5.  Deut.  xiv.  i.  Jerem.  xvi.  6.  xlviii. 

37- 

*  Mulieresgenas  neradunto,  neve  leflum  funeris  er 
go  haben  to.  Petit,  Leg.  Attic,  p.  600.  Ye  Jb all  not 
make  any  cuttings  in  your  jlejb  for  the  dead.  Levit.  xix. 
28.  xxi.  5.  Thefe  cuttings  are  here  forbidden  as  rites 
of  idolatry. 

G  g  The 


450         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

The  foul  of  man,  it  was  imagined,  quit 
ted  the  body  mourning  Ifs  unhappy  fate*  > 
partly  on  account  of  the  enjoyments  it 
loft,  and   partly  by  reafon  of   it's  en 
trance  into    A'ideS)    or  Hades,     a  moft 
gloomy  and  uncomfortable  region,    in 
the  general  opinion  of  the  ancient  Hea 
thens5.     Befides  forrow  and  regret,  the 
dead,  at  going  out  of  the  world,  were 
fuppofed  to  feel  difpleafure  and  refent- 
ment,  and  in  many  cafes  to  pant  after 
revenge6.     It  was  to  this  ftate  of  their 
minds  that  the  mourning  for  them  was 
adapted.     The  extraordinary  grief  and 
fympathy  of  their  relations  at  their  fune 
rals  might  well  be  thought  to  foothe  and 
confole  them  in  fome  degree  under  their 
hard    lot  ;     and,    together   with    their 


Homer.  II.  XVI.  857. 

b  Homer  reprefents  all  the  gholts  in  the  fubterra- 
neous  caverns  as  forronvful,  iracrctv  a^vv^von.  OdyfT. 
XL  541.  Even  Achilles  faid,  he  had  rather  be  the 
meaneit  fiave  upon  earth  than  rule  over  all  the  departed. 
Komer,  Odyff.  XI.  488. 

•  As  was  (hewn  above,  p.  432.  et  feq. 

wounds, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      45 1 

wounds,  and  the  blood  that  iflued  from 
them,  were  believed,  as  we  have  feend, 
to  appeafe  their  rage  and  vengeance* 
The  tranquillity  of  their  minds  being 
thus  reftored,  there  was  no  evil  or  inju 
ry  to  be  dreaded  from  them  on  account 
of  their  having  fuffered  the  lofs  of  their 
lives*  With  the  negleft  of  the  ufual 
figns  and  feafons  of  mourning  they  were 
ibppofed  to  be  greatly  offended6. 

Now  let  common  fenfe  determine, 
whether  thefe  funeral  rites  could  be  de- 
figned  to  honour  or  placate  gods  that  are 
eternal  and  immortal,  and  can  n'evei" 
tafte  the  bitternefs  of  death  ?  But  we 
need  not  afk  the  queflion  ;  for  the  Hea 
thens  themfelves  have  told  us,  that 
mourning  was  a  fpecies  of  worfhip  fuit- 

d  Above,  p.  434.  note0. 

e  This  is  implied  in  the  following  paflage  of  Apulei- 
us,  Metamorph.  1.  8.  p.  242.  ed.  Delph.  Quas  res 
cum  meum  pudorem,  turn  etiam  tuum  falutarecommo- 
dum,  refpicit:  ne  forte  immaturitate  nuptiarum,  in- 
dignatione  jufta  manes  acerbos  mariti  ad  exitium  falutis 
ttisfufcitemus. 

G  g  a  able 


452          Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

able  to  the  deadf,  and  aftually  paid  to 
fuch  of  them  as  were  deified.  A  god  dies, 
and  is  lamented*.  The  ancient  advocates 
for  this  part  of  the  pagan  worfhip  difco- 
vered,  or  pretended  to  difcover,  a  fecret 
reference  in  it  to  natural  obje6tsh.  But 
this  fecondary  and  myftical  fenfe,  if  it 
was  at  all  intended,  was  not  underftood 
by  the  people,  nor  defigned  to  be  fo ; 
and,  infteadof  fubverting,  it  rather  pre- 
fuppofes,  the  literal  and  primary  mean 
ing  of  the  rites  in  queftion.  Plutarch, 
the  great  advocate  for  their  phyfical  inter 
pretation,  allows  their  being  underftood 

*  Quorum  omnis  cultus  effet  futurus  in  luftu.     Cice 
ro,  deNat.Deor.  1.  i.  c.  15. 

8  Maxim.  Tyr.   Diflert.    38.    p.  398.      See  Julius 
Firmicus,  p.  4,  5. 

^  Sed  in  funeribus  ec  lu£libus,  quae  vere  funt  funera, 
quae  fafta  funt  i  defenfores  eorum  volunt  addere 

phyficam  rationem.  Julius  Firmicus  de  Errore  Prof. 
Relig.  p.  5.  In  the  fequel  he  explains  this  phyfical 
reafon,  but  it  does  not  belong  to  this  place.  See  Plu 
tarch  in  the  places  referred  to  in  the  next  note. 

of 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  453 
of  the  births  and  deaths  of  the  gods*. 
Accordingly  we  find  the  Heathens  k,  as 
well  as  the  early  Chriftians1,  urging  them 
as  a  proof  that  thofe  gods  had  been  mere 
mortals. 

The  mourning,  in  the  feftivals  of  the 

gods,    was  fucceeded   by  a  banquet,    in* 

which  the  gods  themfelves  were  fuppo- 

fed  to  fharem.     This   circumftance  alfo 

G  g  3  agrees 


©SAW  ytvtffHq  v.a,\  (po^aj  «  'Tt^oara.yo^v  ovreq  povov,  ahXct,  KX* 
Plutarch.  If.  &  Ofir.  p.  379.  B.  See  alfo  a 
little  higher  in  the  fame  page,  and  comp.  p.  359. 

k  Tu  plangens  hominem  teftaris  Ofirin.  Lucan, 
VIII.  833. 

1  Lugete  mortuos  veftros,  et  feq.  Julius  Firmicus, 
p.  20.  See  p.  4,  5. 

m  Notwithstanding  their  neftar  and  ambrolia,  the 
gods  retained  their  reliih  of  their  former  earthly  viands. 
They  ajl  left  heaven  for  the  fake  of  feafting  with  the  JE- 
thiopians,  Jupiter  himfelf  leading  the  way,  as  we  learn 
from  Homer.  Indeed  they  were  invited  as  guefts  to  all  en  • 
tertainments,  befides  thofe  made  on  purpofe  for  them. 

.  •      .    Et  divos  ipfumque  vocamus 
In  partem  prsedamque  Jovem.     ^En,  III.  222. 
The  epulones,  whofe  bufmefs  it  was  to  prepare  the  facred 
banquets  at  the  folemn  games,  and  to  fet  up  couches  on 
_which  the  gods  lay  at  tables,  were  perfons  of  great  dif- 

tin&km. 


454  Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 
agrees  with  the  idea  the  ancients  enter 
tained  of  human  fpirits,  whom  they 
not  only  flatedly  fupplied  with  food,  by 
daily  facrifices,  but  for  whom  they  alfo 
provided  annually  a  magnificent  feaft". 
Befides,  the  banquet,  which  fucceeded 
the  folemn  mourning  in  the  worfhip 
of  the  gods,  was  a  funeral  rite :  for  after 
the  obfequies  there  was  an  entertain 
ment,  part  of  which  was  confecrated  to 
the  manes  of  the  deceafed,  and  carried  to 
their  tombs0. 

Games  were  inftituted  only  in  honour 
of  the  gods  j  and  they  alfo  were  funeral 
rites,  which  were  exhibited  to  almoft  all 
the  deadp.  Hence  it  follows,  that  the 

dead 

tin£tion.  See  Guther  de  Jure  Manium,  1.  2.*  c.  10. 
The  bell  meal  put  the  gods  into  the  bed  humour  to  grant 
favours,  and  was  called  afupplication.  Witnefs  the  lec- 
tifternium. 

n  See  above,  p.  427,  428. 

*  Bos,  p.  43 1. 

P  Omitto  quod  Varro  dicit,  omnes  ab  his  mortuos 
exiftimari  manes  decs,  et  probat  per  ca  facra,  quae  om 
nibus  fere  exhibentur  mortuis,  ubi  et  ludos  commemorat 

funebres, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  455 
dead  in  general  were  confidered  as  gods, 
and  were  the  fole  objects  of  this  fpecies 
ofworfhip. 

If,  exclufive  of  all  teftimony,  we  exa 
mine  the  games  themfelves,  we  fhall 
foon  perceive,  that,  whatever  natural 
inftru£lion  might  be  veiled  under  them, 
they  were  celebrated  in  honour  of  deified 
men.  They  were  imitations,  or  fceni- 
cal  reprefentations,  of  the  aftions,  the 
fufferings,  and  lawlefs  paffions4,  of  the 
gods,  and  indeed  of  their  whole  hiftory. 
It  is  of  men  alone  that  thefe  fcenes 
could  be  juft  reprefentations.  It  is  to 
their  ghofts  only  that  they  could  be  jud 
ged  acceptable,  as  memorials  of  their 
former  condition.  Thefe  exhibitions 
were  attended  with  all  poffible  magnifi 
cence,  in  order  to  gratify  their  pride  and 
vanity. 

funebres,  tanquam  hoc  fit  maximum  divinitatis  indi 
cium,  quod  non  foleant  ludi  nil!  numinibus  celebrari. 
Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  26. 

Q  See  Cyprian  on  this  fubjeft,    Ad  Donatum,    p.  5, 
6.  ed.  Fell. 

G   g   4  ^ 


456          Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

If  you  ftill  doubt  whether  the  games 
referred  to  the  aftions  and  events  of  hu 
man  beings,  remember  that,  in  the 
worfhip  of  Matuta,  the  mother,  there 
was  a  reprefentation  of  whatever  befel 
Bacchus's  nurfe,  and  whatever  Ino  fuf- 
fered  from  the  jealoufy  of  Junor :  and 
that,  amongft  other  ceremonies  in  the 
worfhip  of  Ariadne,  who  died  in  child 
bed,  and  to  whom  Thefeus  ordered  di 
vine  honours,  a  youth  lay  in  bed,  and 
counterfeited  all  the  pains  of  a  woman 
in  travail8.  In  the  feaft  of  Adonis,  be- 
fides  reprefenting  funeral  folemnities  by 
lamentations  and  mournful  fongs,  they 
even  expofed  images  refembling  dead 
men  carried  out  to  their  burial1,  This 
feftival  was  celebrated  throughout  all 
Greece  and  Egypt ;  all  the  cities  putting 
themfelves  in  mourning,  which  was  de- 

»  Plutarch.  Vit.  Camilli,  p.  131.  B, 

•  Plutarchi  Thefeus,  p.p.  B.  C. 

t  Plutarch.  Vit.  Alcibiad.  p.  200.  C.  p.  532.  B. 
See  alfo  Spencer,  Leg.  Heb.  p.  575,  580,  581.  Dio- 
dor.  Sic.  p.  24,  25.  ed  WefT.  Lucian,  torn.  2.  p. 
658,  659. 

figned 


'in  tie  ancient  heathen  World.       457 

figned  to  commemorate  the  death  of  A- 
donis,  and  in  tettimony  of  their  fympa- 
thy  with  Venus.  Ofiris  alfo  being  {lain 
as  Adonis  was,  the  memory  of  his  death 
was  preferved  by  expofmg  a  fimilar  i- 
mage"  of  him  in  his  feftival,  as  well  as 
by  other  rites  of  burial. 

On  the  whole,  though  it  is  not  affir 
med,  that  the  religious  rites  here  fpe- 
cified  had  no  manner  of  reference  to 
the  fyftem  of  nature,  yet  they  cer 
tainly  correfponded  to  the  idea  the  an 
cients  had  formed  of  human  ghofts, 
were  of  the  fame  kind  with  thofe  which 
were  paid  to  thefe  ghofts,  and  even,  in 
many  cafes,  were  memorials  and  repre- 
fentations  of  the  fufferings  and  death 
of  the  deities  in  whofe  honour  they  were 
performed.  This  is  a  plain  proof  that 
thefe  gods  had  been  men,  and  even  that 
they  were  worfliipped  under  the  very  idea 
of  men  that  were  dead. 

u  See  Julius  Firmicus,  p.  4,  5.  cited  above,  p.  448. 
note  ». 

In 


458         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

In  fpeaking  of  the  heathen  worfhip,  I 
cannot  omit  to  make  mention  of  the 
wyfteries.  In  the  celebration  of  thefe 
rites  an  explicit  declaration  was  made 
of  the  mortal  origin  even  of  the  princi 
pal  obje6ts  of  national  worfhip  among 
the  Gentiles  ;  as  we  learn  from  the  tefti- 
monies  both  of  heathen  and  chriftian 
writers w.  The  very  learned  Jablonjki 
does  not  controvert  the  fa6l,  viz.  that 
the  humanity  of  the  gods  was  aflerted  in 
the  myfteries  5  but  he  fuppofes,  that  this 
was  aflerted  by  the  magiftrate,  contrary 
to  his  own  private  opinion,  for  the  cre 
dit  of  religion*.  This  conje£ture  is  not 
only  groundlefs,  but  improbable,  being 

w  Cicero,  Tufcul.  1.  i.  c.  13.  et  de  Nat.  Deor.  1. 
i«  c.  42.  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  i.  p.  24.  ed.  We/I". 
Auguftin.  De  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  5.  Cyprian.  De  I~ 
dol.  Van.  p.  12.— —Thefe  authors  have  been  already 
cited.  I  add  the  following  pafiage  from  Julius  Firmi- 
cus,  p.  13.  Sed  adhuc  fuperfunt  aliae  fuperftitiones, 
quarum  fecreta  pandenda  funt,  Liberi  et  Libert,  qus 
omnia  facris  fenfibus  veilris  fpecialiter  intimanda  funt, 
ut  et  in  iftis  profanis  religionibus  fciatis  mortes  efTe  ho- 
jninum  confecratas. 

x  Jablonfki,  Pantheon  ^gyptiorum,  torn.  2.  Prole- 
gom,  p.  xxvii. 

inconfiftent 


tn  the  ancient  heathen  World.  459 
inconfiftent  with  all  that  we  know  of  the 
conduft  of  magiftrates  and  of  thofe  who 
wifhed  to  fupport  the  religion  of  the 
ftate.  The  magiftrate,  whofe  bufmefs 
it  was  to  proteft  it,  always  a6led  in  u- 
nion  with  the  prieft';  and  indeed  both 
offices,  though  diftinft,  were  very  often 
united  in  the  fame  perfon,  who  did  not 
oppofe  in  one  capacity  what  he  taught  in 
another.  Befides,  thofe  who  moft  con- 
fulted  the  credit  of  the  public  religion 
prudently  difcouraged  all  enquiry  concer 
ning  the  origin  of  the  greater  gods,  and, 
inftead  of  divulging,  ftrove  to  conceal, 
their  humanity,  either  by  infmuating  at 
times  that  they  were  originally  beings  of  a 
higher  rank  than  mankind,  or  (what  was 
.more  commonly  the  cafe)  by  applying  their 
hiftory  to  elementary  and  mundane  deities , 
The  following  appears  to  me  to  be  the 
true  ftate  of  the  cafe.  The  firft  obje£ts 
of  idolatrous  worfhip  were  the  elements 
and  heavenly  bodies.  When  the  wor 
fhip  of  deified  men  was  fuperinduced 
upon  that  of  the  planets  and  elements, 

much 


460         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

much  confufion  was  introduced  into  the 
heathen  theology,  and  the  original  doc 
trine  concerning  the  gods  was  in  danger 
of  being  loft.  To  prevent  this,  the 
myfteries  were  inftituted,  and  the  true 
grounds  of  the  pagan  worfhip  were  pro 
bably  explained  to  fuch  as  were  judged 
capable  and  worthy  of  fuch  information. 
This  could  not  be  done  without  admit 
ting  that  the  popular  or  national  gods 
had  been  removed  from  earth  to  heaven7. 
And  this  conceffion,  which  is  all  that  be 
longs  to  our  prefent  fubjeft,  is  a  very 
ftrong  confirmation  of  the  point  I  have 
been  attempting  to  eftabliftu  It  muft  be 
obferved  farther,  that,  although  the 
myfteries  were  the  moft  facred  of  all  the 
heathen  rites,  they  were  inftituted  only  in 
honour  of  gods  of  mortal  origin,  fuch  as 
Jupiter,  Ofiris,  Ifis,  Mithras,  Bacchus, 
Venus,  „  Ceres,  Proferpine,  Vulcan, 

y  <e  In  the  reprefentations  of  the  myfteries,"  fays 
Flutarch,  "  the  true  nature  'of  demons  is  held  forth." 
See  Warburtou's  Div.  Legat.  v.  I.  p..  162.  ed.  1755. 

Caftor 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      4-61 

Caftor  and  Pollux,  and  others  known  to 
be  of  human  defcent. 

VII.  The  heathen  divinations  and  ora 
cles  were  thought  to  proceed  from  de 
mons  or  the  manes  of  the  dead. 

It  has  indeed  been  aflerted,  that  thofe 
fuppofed  to  be  prophets  were  all  titles 
which  related  to  one  god>  the  fun21 :  an  aC- 
fertion  which  has  the  appearance  of  be 
ing  fupported  by  etymological  conjec 
tures,  but  which  is  contradifted  by  in- 
difpu  table  fafts.  I  fhall  ftate  the  fubjed 
in  what  appears  to  me  to  be  it's  true 
light.  Several  philofphers  did  afcribe  o- 
racles  in  fome  meafure  to  natural  caufes, 
and  particularly  to  certain  prophetic  ex 
halations  from  the  earth,  which  owed 
their  virtue  to  a  folar  influence3.  But 
this  was  merely  the  private  opinion  of  a 
few  learned  men,  to  which  the  people 


2  Bryant's  Mythol.  v.  i.  p.  253.  fee  from  p.  239- 
282.  and  p.  445.  The  gentleman's  hypothefis  is  irre- 
concileable  with  the  facred  writings.  See  If.  viii.  19* 

*  This  is  lhewn  in  DiiTert.  on  Mir.  p,  259,  note  P. 

were 


462         Worflnp  of  human  Spirits 

were  ftrangers.  Nay,  thefe  philofo* 
phers  themfelves  allowed,  that  demons 
might  be  appointed  to  prefide  over  divi 
nations  and  oracles b  -,  and  that  the  foul 
itfelf  is  naturally  endued  with  the  fa 
culty  of  divining*. 

The  common  perfuafion  was,  that 
departed  fpirits  had  an  oracular  or  pro 
phetical  quality.  This  clearly  appears 
from  thofe  divinations  by  the  dead,  and 
by  ghofts,  called  necromancy  and  necuo* 
mancy\  fo  univerfally  prevalent  in  the 
heathen  world.  Oracles,  therefore, 
were  certainly  referred  to  dead  men  ;  to 
fuch  efpecially  as  had,  when  living,  dif- 
covered  a  fuperior  fagacity,  or  a  greater 
infight  into  futurity,  than  dothers,  Di- 

b  DiiTert.  ubi  fupra,  &  p.  175. 

*  Id.  p.  259.  note  P. 

c  Plutarch  fpeaks  of  a  njtvopottluott  an  oracle  of  ghofts^ 
where  they  were  raifed  up  to  foretel  future  events.  Vit. 
Cimon.  p.  482.  C.  See  the  account  which  Maximvis 
Tyrius  ( Differ t.  26.  p.  265.  ed.  Davif.)  has  given  of  a 
cave  near  the  lake  Aornon,  where,  by  prayers,  facrifi- 
ces,  and  libations,  a  prophetic  ghoft  was  raifed  up. 

d  See  Paufanias,  Attica,  p.  83,  84. 

vinatiQ] 


tn  tie  ancient  heathen  World.       463 

vination  by  the  evocation  of  the  dead 
was  praftifed  in  the  moft  ancient  times. 
In  the  Perfse  of  ^Efchylus,  the  ghoft 
of  Darius  is  called  up,  and  foretels  his 
queen  her  deftiny.  According  to  Ho 
mer  *,  Ulyfles  invoked  the  dead, 
and  defcended  into  the  infernal  re 
gions,  that  he  might  learn  his  future 
fortunes  from  the  prophet  Tirefias. 
With  the  fame  view  ./Eneas  confulted 
Anchifes.  Saul  alfo  applied  to  a  ventri- 
loquift  to  call  up  Samuel :  apra6tice  that 
was  as  early  as  the  age  of  Mofes*. 
Now  will  any  one  affirm,  that  Darius, 
Tirefias,  Anchifes,  and  Samuel,  or  any 
of  the  dead  whom  ventriloquifts  preten 
ded  to  confult,  were  title*  of  the  fun  ? 

Two  confiderations  ferve  to  fhew  that 
all  oracles  were  referred  to  human 
ghofts  :  the  known  characters  of  the 
gods  who  had  oracles,  and  the  places 
where  they  were  fet  up.  As  to  the  gods 
themfelves  here  referred  to,  they  were 

*  OdyfT.  XL          *  Levit.  xx.  6. 

known 


464         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

known  to  be  human  perfonages.  Such 
was  Ammon,  fpoken  of  above,  who 
had  an  oracle  both  at  Thebes  in  Egypt, 
and  in  Libya g  ;  Apollo  alfo,  whofe  ora 
cle  at  Delphi  was  fo  much  celebrated, 
was  one  of  twelve  greater  gods  whofe 
mortal  origin  was  difclofed  in  the  myfte- 
ries.  'Themis,  a  Pelafgic  deity h,  and 
one  of  the  Titanidae1,  had  an  oracle  at 
mount  Parnaffusk;  Trophonius  near 
the  city  of  Lebadia1;  Amphiaraus™  in 
Bceotia,  or  in  Attica";  Branchides  in 
Milefia0;  the  daughter  of  Macarus  at 

.*  See  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  3.  p.  241,  242.  ed  WefT. 
Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  54,  55,  56. 

fc  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  50. 

1  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  v.  p.  383.  Apollodorus  de  Diis, 
1.  i.  init. 

k  Herodot.  ubi  fupra. 

1  Liv.  xxv.  27.  Maxim.  Tyr.  DilTert.  26.  p.  265. 
cd.Davif.  Schol.ad  Ariftoph.  ad  Nub.  508. 

m  Herodot.  1.  I.  c.  52.  Apuleius,  torn.  2,  p.  689, 
Paufanias,  p.  84. 

n  According  to  Bos,  p.  97. 

0  Bos,  p.  98.    Pliny,  v.  29,    Mela,  I.  17.  4- 

Amphifla 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      465 

AmphifTa  in  Phocisqj  Geryon  near  Pa- 
taviumr.  Now  all  thefe  oracular  gods, 
as  is  evident  at  firft  fight,  were  no  other 
than  dead  men  and  women  deified9. 
And  fuch  we  muft  pronounce  all  the  o- 
ther  oracular  divinities  to  have  been,  till 
fome  clear  examples  to  the  contrary  are 
produced,  which  has  not  yet  been  done. 
The  Augilites,  who  had  no  other  gods 
but  the  ghofts  of  men,  confulted  them 
as  oracles1. 

The  heathen  oracles  were  fet  up  at 
fepulchreS)  and  in  temples^  which  are  on 
ly  another  name  for  fepulchral  monu 
ments  erefled  in  honour  of  the  dead. 
Their  ghofts,  therefore,  were  certainly 
the  deities  confulted  in  thefe  places. 
And,  as  oracles  were  fet  up  in  all  the 
an cient  nations,  and  were  univerfally H  con- 

i  Paufanias,  L  10.  p.  896. 

T  Sueton.  Tiber,  c.  14. 

»  See  Apuleius,  ubi  fupra ;   and  Maxim.  Tyr,  Dii 
fert.  26.  p.  265. 

«  P.  Mela,  cited  above,  p.  97.  note  P. 

11  Hct?a,i  0,1  TroAst?  x.ea  iranTa  TO,  e§vn  hoc,  ^amxJj?  ewe^wTW- 
rt  r»5  ^««?,  rt  T£  x&>  3tat  Tt  s  Xff*»  Trotejv.  Xenophon, 
5ympof.  p.  163.  Oper.  V.  5.  ed.  Wells. 

H  h  fulted, 


466         Worfhip  of  human  Spirits 

fulted,  on  all  occafions  of  importance, 
both  by  thofe  who  had  the  direction 
of  the  public  concerns  and  by  private 
perfons,  and  were  alfo  accompanied  with 
facrificesw,  luftrations,  and  other  religious 
ceremonies,  they  afford  full  proof  of  the 
very  extenfive  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 
in  the  heathen  world. 

If,  notwithftanding  all  the  evidence 
of  this  point  hitherto  produced,  whether 
from  teftimony  or  from  facts,  it  fhould 
ftill  appear  incredible  that  dead  men 
and  women  fhould  be  generally  worfhip- 
ped  as  gods,  even  in  nations  celebrated 
for  their  wifdom  and  learning,  I  might 
in  fome  meafure  remove  this  prejudice, 
by  fhewing  upon  what  plaufible  preten 
ces  that  worfhip  was  founded.  But  the 
grounds  and  reafons  of  it  are  foreign 
from  my  prefent  defign.  I  would  only 
obferve, 

v  With  human  facrifices,  according  to  Servius  on 
Virg.  ^En.  VI.  107.  Quae  fine  hominis  occifione  non 
fiebant, 

VIII. 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      467 

VIII.  That  the  remains  of  it  at  this 
day,  amongft  many  profefTed  Chriftians, 
give  credibility  to  the  exiftence  of  it  in 
former  times  amongft  the  Heathens, 
It  is  certain  that  the  worfhip  of  the  dead 
ftili  prevails,  and  has  long  prevailed,  a- 
mongft  the  former,  in  the  fame  manner 
it  did  amongft  the  latter. 

Some  of  the  Gentile  converts  carried 
meat,  bread,  and  wine,  to  the  fepul- 
chres  of  the  martyrs x,  as  they  had  been 
accuftomed  to  do  to  the  manes  of  their 
anceftors  before  their  converfion7. 

As  the  Gentiles  offered  up  prayers  to 
the  dead  at  their  fepulchres2;  in  like 
manner,  according  to  Eufebius,  Chrif 
tians  went  to  the  tombs  of  the  champions 
of  true  religion,  and  made  their  fray  en 

x  See  Auflin,  (1.  8.  c.  27,  de  Civ.  Dei,  &  1.  vi. 
ConfeiT.  c.  2.)  Jlli  enim  ad  fepulchra  martyrum  epu- 
las  deferebant,  pultem,  panem,  et  vinum.  Gather  de 
Jure  Manium,  1.  2.  c.  12. 

y  As  to  the  heathen  cultom,  fee  Ovid's  Fafti,  I.  2. 

v.  533-54°- 

z  Adde  preces  pofitis  et  fua  verba  fods.     Id.  ib.  v. 

542- 

H  h  2  at 


468          Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

at  them,  and  honoured  their  bleffed  fouls*  ; 
believing  them  to  have  power  to  avert  e- 
vils  from  mankind,  and  to  beftow  blef- 
fings  upon  them b :  a  power  which  the 
Gentiles  afcribed  to  thofe  gods  who  had 
been  men. 

The  fepulchres  of  faints  and  martyrs 
have  been  converted  by  Chriftians  into 
churches,  juft  as  the  heathen  fepulchres 
were  into  temples.  Altars,  annual  fef- 
tivals,  and  other  religious  rites,  have 
been  inftituted  to  dead  men,  as  well  by 
many  who  live  under  the  Gofpel0  as  by 
the  more  ancient  idolaters,  who  were 
ftrangers  to  it.  The  worfhip  of  images 
is  as  familiar  to  papifts  as  it  ever  was  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  apologized  for  by  both 
upon  the  fame  grounds.  By  both  alfo 
their  gods  are  carried  about  in  fhrines, 


»  Eufeb.  Prsep.  Ev.  1.  13.  c.  u.  p.  663. 

b  Mede,  p.  641,  642.  Newton  on  Daniel,  c.  14, 
p.  215.  Middleton's  Letters,  prefatory  Difc.  p.  51. 

c  Middleton's  Letters  from  Rome,  prefatory  Dif-* 
courfe,  p.  25.  Newton  on  Dan.  ch.  14. 

and 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      469 

and  thought  to  be  prefent  in  every  image 
and  every  edifice  erefted  to  their  honour. 
The  abfurdity  of  the  papifts  is  more  gla 
ring  than  that  of  the  Pagans,  becaufe 
they  believe  that  the  whole  bodily  prefence 
of  Chrift  is  in  ten  thoufand  different  pla 
ces  in  the  fame  inftant  of  time,  under 
the  appearance  of  bread  and  wine. 

The  Papifts  dignify  their  faints  with 
divine  titles,  as  the  pagans  did  their 
worthies d.  Both  affign  to  their  deities 
the  fame  offices,  confidering  them  as  the 
guardians  of  towns,  cities,  and  coun 
tries,  as  prefidents  overall  the  objefts 
of  nature,  and  over  the  various  occupa 
tions  of  human  life6. 

d  If  the  emperor  Domitlan  ft/led  himfelf  LORD 
and  GOD,  as  was  obferved  above,  p.  275.  note6;  fo 
is  the  pope  called  GOD,  the  SUPREME  DEITY  on 
earth,  and  our  LORD  GOD.  Chandler's  Account  of  a 
Conference  in  Nicolas-lane,  1734.  The  Papifts  fome- 
times  plead  that  they  only  call  their  faints  divi,  not  dii* 
But  thefe  are  equivalent  terms.  Servius  on  Virg.  yEn, 
XII.  139- 

«  See  Middleton's  Letters,  p.  153,  178.  Prefat. 
Difc,  p.  51. 

H  h  3  If, 


470         Wcrjhip  of  human  Spirits 

If,  amongft  the  Heathens,  fome  god- 
defies  were  thought  to  have  more  power, 
or  were  in  higher  reputation  nrone  place 
than  in  another ;  as  Juno  at  Argosf,  for 
example;  it  is  juft  the  fame  amongft 
Papifts  with  the  lady  of  Loretto.  The 
virgin  Mary  holds  the  firft  rank  amongft 
all  the  popifh  faints,  and  feems  indeed 
to  be  the  principal  objeft  of  their  devo 
tion.  To  her  the  ftatelieft  churches  and 
the  faireft  altars  are  raifed  j  to  her  the 
moft  frequent  addrefles  are  made,  and 
the  greateft  number  of  miracles  afcri- 
bedg.  If  the  Heathens  honoured  a  dei 
fied  woman  as  the  mother  of  the  gods,  and 
queen  of  heaven* -y  too  many  Chriftians 
apply  thefe  titles  to  Mary,  calling  her 

f  Spence's  Polymetis,  p.  56. 

«  Sir  Edward  Sandy's  Survey  of  Religion,  p.  4,  5, 
6. 

h  The  regent  of  the  moon  was  flyled  queen  of  hea 
ven  ;  and  the  mother  of  the  gods  was  Rhea,  who  is  faid 
to  have  appeared  to  Themiftocles  in  a  dream.  Plutarch. 
Vit.  Themiil.  p.  127.  A. 

the 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      47 1 

the  queen  of  heaven*,  and  the  mother  of  God. 
And  fhe  delights  to  be  worshipped  under 
different  titles*,  juft  as  the  Heathen  dei 
ties  did1. 

Demon-worfhip  was  thought  to  be 
juftified  amongft  the  Heathens  by  the 
oftentation  of  oracles,  the  cure  of  difea- 
fes,  and  other  miracles"1.  Herein  they 
were  imitated  by  Chriftians,  who  pre 
tended,  that  the  miracles  performed  in 
the  times  of  Chrift  and  his  apoftles  were 
renewed  at  the  fepulchres  of  the  mar- 

1  Lipfius  addreffes  Mary  in  the  following  terms.  O 
goddefs  !  thou  art  the  queen  of  heaven,  of  th:  fea,  and 
of  the  earth.  Lipf.  Oper.  p.  1288.  Tcnifon  of  Idola 
try,  p.  290.  Epiphanius  fays  of  Chriftians  in  his  time, 
^They  mads  a  goddefs  of  the  virgin,  and  offered  a  cake  tinto 
her  as  the  queen  of  heaven.  Mede,  p.  636. 

k  Chiihul  fays,  (Travels,  p.  135,  6.)  The  virgin  is 
not  invoked  under  the  fame  character  in  all  places  and 
on  all  occafions,  but  *— —  is  fplit  into  fo  many  diftinct 
objects  of  worfhip ;  as  the  lady  de  Victoria,  &c.  She 
has  numerous  titles,  (comp.  p.  172,  173.)  probably 
according  to  her  diftinft  offices. 

1  On  the  polyonomy  of  the  heathen  gods,  fee  Selden, 
Prolcgom.  c.  3.  ******  5.  Sched.  de  Diis  Germaa, 
p.  87,  89,  175. 

111  Mede,  p.  680,  68 1.     Newton,  p.  211. 

H  h  4  tyrs. 


472         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

tyrs".  A  miraculous  power  was  attribu 
ted  to  their  dead  bodies,  to  their  bones, 
and  other  reliques0. 

It  was  not  v/ithout  reafon,  therefore, 
that  the  gentile  philofophers  long  ago 
reproached  Chriftians   with  introducing 
new  gods,  fuch  as  were  taken  from   a- 
mongft  menp.     Nay,  Theodoret  boafts 
that   God  had  brought  his  dead   (viz.  the 
martyrs)    into  the  place     (the  temples) 
of  the  heathen  gods.      For,    inftead  of  the 
feajis  of  Jupiter  and  Bacchus,  are  now  ce 
lebrated  the  fejli'vals  of  Peter  and  Paul, — 
and  of  the  holy  martyrs*.     If  the  Gentiles 
fer<ved  the  creature,  faffing  over  the  crea 
tor*,  the  papifts,  (I  fpeak  not  of  indivi 
duals,)  notwithftanding  fome  verbal  ac- 

n  Mede,  ubi  fupra ;  and  Middleton's  Free  Enquiry, 
p.  130.  etfeq.  As  to  popifh  miracles,  fee  Middleton's 
Prefatory  Difcourfe  to  his  Letters  from  Rome,  p.  29.  et 
feq. 

0  Newton  on  Daniel,  p.  208.  et  feq. 

P  Eunapius,  Vit.  Philofoph.  p.  76.  See  Julian  ap. 
Cyril,  in  Newton,  p.  208. 

s  Theodoret,  1.  8.  ap.  Mede,  p.  642. 

r  n#f«  rov  xnrayra*  Rom.  i.  21.     Beza  in  Joe, 

knowledgements 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      473 

knowledgements  of  him,  do  very  much 
conceal  him  from  public  view,  by  direc 
ting  the  attention  of  the  people  to  many 
other  objects  of  religious  worfhip,  by  af- 
fociating  with  him  the  virgin  Mary  and 
other  faints *,  and  by  making  the  moft 
dishonourable  reprefentations  of  him  in 
the  pictures  with  which  their  facred  edi 
fices  are  adorned.  The  figure  of  the 
ever-adorable  and  incomprehenfible  Je 
hovah,  who  inhabits  eternity  and  fills 
immenfity,  is  generally  that  of  an  old 
man-,  and,,  in  fome  places,  he  has  upon 
him  a  night-gown  and  cap1.  In  the  feve- 
ral  foregoing  particulars,  and  many 
more  that  might  be  mentioned,  there  is 
a  ftriking  refemblance  between  the  idola 
try  of  Papifts  and  Pagans.  The  for 
mer  know  that  the  objects  of  their  wor- 
fhip  had  been  men,  juft  as  the  latter 

«  In  the  town  of  Znaim,  in  Moravia,  there  is  an  i- 
mage  of  the  virgin,  eredled  on  a  fair  pillar,  with  this 
inscription  :  Laus  Deo,  Mariteque  virgini,  fan^lifyus  fu- 
Js.  Chifliul's  Travels,  p.  131. 

<  Id.  ib.  p.  116. 

did. 


474         Worjklp  of  human  Spirits 

did.  Both  perform  their  worfhip  in  the 
very  fame  places,  on  the  high -ways,  in 
groves,  on  mountains*,  and  at  fepukhres. 
Let  us  now  briefly  confider,  how  far  the 
practice  of  the  worfhip  of  dead  men,  in 
a  large  part  of  the  chriftian  church, 
proves  the  prior  exiftence  of  it  in  the 
heathen  world. 

Every  refemblance  between  the  cuf- 
toms,  whether  civil  or  religious,  of  dif 
ferent  nations,  does  not,  I  acknowledge, 
neceflarily  argue  imitation.  A  confide- 
rable  refemblance  has  been  difcovered 
between  the  cuftoms  of  different  people 
who  have  had  no  intercourfe  with  one 
another  j  and,  where  it  is  not  purely  ac 
cidental,  may  be  accounted  for  by  fome 
principles  in  human  nature  common  to 
all.  Let  it  then  be  fuppofed,  what, 
however,  cannot  be  granted,  that  the 
conformity  between  popery  and  pagan- 
ifrn,  in  the  feveral  particulars  ftated  a- 
bove,  and  in  a  hundred  others  that  have 

u  Middleton's  Letters,  p.  184,  185. 

been 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World,       475 

been  omitted,  may  be  thus  accounted 
for ;  it  will  (till  ferve  to  (hew,  that  the 
fame  fpecies  of  idolatry,  praftifed  in  a 
great  part  of  the  chriftian  world,  might, 
and  probably  did,  prevail  in  the  heathen 
world.  To  whatever  common  princi 
ples  you  choofe  to  afcribe  it's  prevalence 
in  both,  they  were  likely  to  operate  more 
ftrongly  in  the  latter  than  in  the  for 
mer:  for  Chriftianity  fo  clearly  and  pa 
thetically  reprefents  God  as  the  only 
proper  objefl  of  religious  worfhip,  that 
it  is  even  hard  to  conceive  how  the  pro^ 
feflbrs  of  this  religion  fhoulcl  join  any  o- 
thers  with  him.  At  the  fame  time  it 
gives  us  fuch  a  view  of  the  ftate  of  the 
dead"  as  overturns  the  very  foundation 
of  all  the  devotion  which  has  been  paid 
them.  Nay,  it  particularly  warns  us  a- 
gainft  this  fpecies  of  idolatry,  and  brands 
it  as  an  apoftacy  from  the  chriftian 
faith x.  Thefe  confiderations  are  well  a- 
dapted  to  prefer ve  the  profeflbrs  of  the 

*  Divert,  on  Mir.  p.  161  etfeq.     M  Tim.  iv.  i. 

Gofpel 


476         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Gofpel  from  all  idolatry,  more  efpecialty 
from  the  worihip  of  the  dead  ;  and  have 
aftually  produced  this  effe£t  on  multi 
tudes  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times, 
though  not  on  all.  Now  if  reafon,  even 
when  aided  by  revelation,  could  not 
check  the  fuppofed  natural  propenfity  to 
the  worfhip  of  dead  men;  it  cannot  be  i- 
magined  that  reafon  alone  could  do  it.  E- 
very  natural  principle  or  bias  will  operate 
with  the  greateft  force  where  there  are  the 
feweft  and  the  weakeft  powers  of  refift- 
ance. 

But  the  conformity  between  paganifm 
and  popery,  with  refpe6l  to  the  worfhip 
of  the  dead,  holds  in  fo  many  particu 
lars,  and  fuch  as  have  manifeftly  no 
foundation  in  any  appearance  of  reafon, 
or  bias  of  nature,  that  it  cannot  be  ac 
counted  for  without  fuppofing  that 
Chriftians  copied  from  the  Heathens. 
Befides,  we  learn  from  hiftory,  what  we 
might  have  prefumed  to  be  true  from  a 
knowledge  of  human  nature,  that  the 

heathen 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  477 
heathen  as.well  as  the  jewifh  converts  to 
Chriftianity  retained  flrong  prejudices  in 
favour  of  many  of  the  principles  in 
which  they  had  been  educated.  Of  this 
there  can  be  no  ftronger  proof  than  a 
faft  taken  notice  of  above7,  the  continu 
ance  of  the  cuftom  of  offering  human 
vi<5lims  amongft  the  Chriftians  in  GauL 
From  hiftory  we  likewife  learn,  that 
many  paftors  of  the  church,  who  were 
employed  in  bringing  men  over  to  the 
profeffion  of  the  Gofpel,  though  they 
themfelves  might  havejuft  conceptions 
of  it,  condefcended  too  far  to  the  preju 
dices  of  others.  They  could  not  flop  the 
current  of  fuperftition,  and  therefore  en 
deavoured  to  dire6t  it  into  a  new  channel; 
and  were  fure  hereby  to  add  to  the 
wealth  and  grandeur  of  the  church, 
though  at  the  fame  time  they  robbed  it 
of  it's  purity  and  true  glory.  The  mif- 
fionaries  of  Ireland  and  England,  not 

y  P.  108.  note  «.  Procopius  (1.  ii.  de  Bello  Gothi- 
co.)  memorat  Francos  etiam  Chriilum  colentes  adfuum 
sevum  facriiicafTe  homines.  Tomafm.  de  Donariis  vete- 
rum,  c.  40. 

being 


478         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

1>eing  able  to  withdraw  the  people  from 
paying  a  kind  of  adoration  to  ftones  and 
barrows  erefted  to  the  dead2,  cutcroffes 
on  the  former,  and  dedicated  the  latter 
to  chriftian  faints ;  and  then  allowed  the 
fuperftition.  Thefe  criminal  complian 
ces  had  been  unneceflary,  had  not  this 
fnperftition  taken  faft  hold  of  the  minds 
of  the  people  before  they  became  ac 
quainted  with  Chriftianity.  We  may 
therefore  juftly  conclude,  that  the  wor- 
fhip  of  dead  men,  in  countries  called 
chriftian,  is  a  remnant  of  the  pagan  ido 
latry*,  and  a  demonftration  of  it's  having 
exifted  in  general  credit  prior  to  the  co 
ming  of  Chrift,  and  even  prevailed  more 
before  this  period  than  it  has  done  fmce, 
Let  us  weigh  the  feveral  fafts  that  have 
been  ftated  in  this  feftion,  and  fee  what 
is  the  moft  natural  conclufion  from 
them.  The  heathen  gods  were  wor- 
fhipped  at  places  of  fepulture  or  at  ho* 

a  B-orlafe's  Antiq.  of  Cornw.  p.  222,  223. 

*  See  Middleton's  Letters  from  Rome,  p.  225.  f. 

norary 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      479 

norary  tombs  :  they  were  reprefented  by 
images  in  human  form  :  the  gifts  pre- 
fented  to  them  were  adapted  to  the  ap 
prehended  nature  of  human  fpirits,  and 
the  ceremonies  with  which  they  were 
honoured  refpe6led  their  former  mortal 
condition  :  and  oracles,  thofe  boafted 
proofs  of  a  divine  fore-knowledge,  were 
referred  to  the  manes  of  the  dead.  Thefe 
facls  clearly  point  to  deceafed  mortals  as 
the  objefls  of  pagan  worfhip.  We  are 
even  eye-witneffes  of  the  aftual  exiftence 
of  a  fimilar  worfhip  in  the  chriftian 
church,  which,  we  know,  was  introdu 
ced  there  by  the  converts  from  the  hea 
then  religion.  And,  though  the  priefts 
endeavoured  to  conceal  the  mortal  origin 
of  their  principal  gods,  yet  they  entruf- 
ted  the  fecret  with  fo  many,  that  it  was 
at  laft  openly  divulged. 

I  fhall  offer  no  more  proofs  of  the 
worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  this  place. 
Some  farther  illuftrations  of  it  may  oc 
cur  in  examining  the  grounds  and  rea- 

fons 


480         WorJIoip  of  human  Spirits 

fons  of  the  Heathens  deifying  both  the 
world  and  the  fouls  of  men.  I  fhall 
now  conclude  with  a  brief  recapitulation 
of  what  has  been  already  advanced. 

That  gods,  who  had  their  original 
here  below,  were  worshipped  in  moft 
of  the  heathen  nations  commonly  ftyled 
barbarous a,  and  in  all  thofe  polifhed  by 
learning b,  has  been  proved,  by  an  in- 
duclion  of  particulars,  upon  the  tefti- 
mony  of  the  Pagans  themfelves,  who 
certainly  beft  knew  what  the  objefts  of 
their  worfhip  were. 

Befides  the  proofs  of  this  point,  which 
refpeft  particular  nations,  others  of  a 
more  general  nature  were  produced, 
which  equally  refpeft  all  the  learned  na- 
tions>  and  all  others  which  had  adopted 
their  fyftem  of  theology.  The  proofs 
were  drawn  from  two  four  ces :  from  the 
diftincl  teftimonies  of  the  heathen  poets, 
philofophers,  and  hiftorians,  and  of  the 

a  Ch.  I.  fed.  t,  2.  *  Ch.  II. 

chriftian 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  481 
chriftian  Fathers  c ;  and  from  certain 
fafts,  which  cannot  be  controverted,  and 
yet  cannot  be  accounted  for  but  upon 
the  fuppofition  of  the  truth  of  thofe  tef- 
timoniesd.  The  teftimonies  and  the  fafts 
mutually  illuftrate  and  confirm  each  o- 
ther ;  and  both,  efpecially  when  taken 
together,  fully  demonftrate  the  general 
prevalence  of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpi- 
rits  in  the  ancient  heathen  world :  which 
is  the  point  I  undertook  to  eflablifh. 

But  the  arguments,  which  have  car 
ried  us  fo  far,  go  farther,  and  prove, 
not  only  that  human  fpirits  were  gene 
rally  worfhipped  amongfl  the  Heathens, 
but  that  fuch  fpirits  alone,  or  with  few 
exception^  were,  in  the  nations  with 
which  we  are  beft  acquainted,  the  dire6t 
and  immediate  objeft0.  of  the  eftabliftied 
worfhip  j  which  confifted  in  having  fta~ 
tues,  temples,  altars,  priefts,  facrifices, 
feftivals,  games,  and  numerous  ceremo 
nies,  dedicated  to  them  by  public  de- 

*  Cb.  HI.  lea.  i.  d  Ch.  III.  Tea.  2. 

I  i  crees. 


482         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 

crees.  In  the  nations  here  alluded  to, 
idolatry  was  digefted  into  an  artificial 
fyjlem ;  which  might  indeed  be  built 
upon  the  fuppofition  of  there  being  two 
forts  of  gods,  the  natural  and  the  human. 
Neverthelefs,  the  latter,  being  thought 
to  be  intrufted  with  the  government 
of  the  world,  and  more  efpecially  of 
human  affairs,  became  the  grand  objects 
of  mens  hopes,  and  fears,  and  depend 
ence,  and  engrofTed,  as  it  were,  the 
public  devotion.  If  fome  of  thefe  hero- 
gods  were  conlidered,  by  thofe  inftrufl- 
ed  in  the  fecret  doctrine,,  as  fymbols 
of  the  natural,  yet  the  civil  theology 
prefented  the  former  to  the  people  as  be 
ing  themfelves  true  and  real  divinities, 
not  as  fymbols  and  reprefentatives  of  a- 
ny  other e.  Accordingly  the  Heathens  f> 
the  early  Chriftians5,  and  to  thefe  we 

c  Above,  p.  412-415. 

*  P.  223,  224,  255,  256,  257,  263-267,  277. 

«  P.  257*  344-347- 

may 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  483 
may  add  the  ancient  Jewsh,  and  the  fa- 
cred  writers  themfelves  *,  agree  in  repre-^ 
fenting  all  the  gods  of  paganifm  as  de- 
ceafed  mortals.  This  is  certainly  true, 
in  general,  with  refpeft  to  the  objects 
of  national  worihip.  Some,  who  would 
not  undertake  to  affirm  there  were  no  ex 
ceptions,  confefled  that  it  was  difficult 
to  find  any  k$  and  others  thought  that 
there  were  none1.  It  muft  be  ob- 
ferved,  farther,  that  the  argument  from 
the  fafts  before  mentioned,  particu-* 
larly  from  the  reprefentation  of  the 
gods  by  images,  and  the  places  and  rites 
of  their  worfhip,  extends  as  far  as  the 
fore-cited  teftimonies,  and  equally  with 

h  In  their  greek  verfion  of  Pf.  xcv.  5.  we  read, 
Ham?  o»  veoi  TU]>  s^Kwy^fln/Aowa.  ALL  the  gods  of  the  Hea 
then  are  demons,  that  is,  men  who  after  their  deaths 
were  fuppofed  to  become  demons  or  deities.  Demons 
here  cannot  denote  apoftate  angels  ;  becaufe,  in  this 
fen  fe  of  the  word,  the  affertion  is  palpably  falfe. 

»  The  Scripture  reprefents  the  heathen  gods  as  dead 
men,,  and  confequently  as  nothing  more  than  fuch,  be 
caufe  it  does  not  allow  their  real  deification  after  their 
deaths.  Diucrt.  on  Mir.  p*  197.  Above,  p.  13. 

*  Above,  p.  257.  J  lb.  p.  265,  344-347. 

I  i  2  them 


484         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 

them  ferve  to  fhew  that  all  the  heathen 
gods  had  once  been  men;  which  is  a  full 
vindication  of  the  opinion  I  had  exprefled 
of  them  in  the  fame  terms.*  Neverthe- 
lefs,  a  late  writer  declares  no  opinion 
can  be  more  erroneous  than  this,  and  e- 
ven  that  all  the  world  knew  the  heathen 
gods  had  never  been  men*. 

The  Gentiles  diftinguifhed  the  gods 
whom  the  laws  commanded  them  to 
worfhip  into  two  claffes :  the  gods  of  the 
higher,  and  the  lower,  order",  The  lat 
ter  were  by  all  known  and  acknowledged 
to  be  fuch  as  were  natives  of  the  earth, 
but  believed  to  be  advanced  to  heaven. 
As  to  the  former,  the  priefts  difcoura- 
ged  all  inquiry  into  their  origin ;  and 
fometimes  pretended  that  they  were  be- 

*  Above,  p.  12,  13,   14. 

m  Fell,  p.  30,   no. 

n  Dii  majorum,  et  minorum,  gentium.  The  word  gen 
tium  is  ufed  here  as  it  is  in  the  following  paflage  of  Ci 
cero  :  Cleanthesy  qui  quajt  majorum  eft  gentium  Stoicus* 
Academ.  II.  41.  It  has  always  been  argued  from  in 
the  preceding  fheets  in  it's  true  fenfe ;  though,  in  p. 
209,  it  is,  through  mere  inadvertence,  rendered  na 
tions, 

ings 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      48  £ 

ings  of  a  fuperior  fpecies,  a  celeftial  race, 
who  had  only  condefcended  to  vifit  this 
lower  world,  in  the  form  of  men  and 
women,  for  a  time.  Neverthelefs,  per- 
fons  of  underftanding  faw  through  the 
delufion,  and  proved,  from  the  hiftory 
of  their  birth  and  burial,  (what  the 
priefts  themfelves  difclofed,  to  thofe  ini 
tiated  into  the  greater  myfteries,  under 
the  feal  of  fecrecy,)  that  even  thefe  gods 
of  the  firil  clafs  were  of  human  defcent0. 
The  Heathens  not  only  declare,  in  ge 
neral  terms,  that  all  their  gods  had  no 
higher  original,  but  affirm  that  this  was 
the  cafe  in  particular  with  refpeft  to  their 
great  eft  gods^  and  the  objefts  of  their 
moft  auguft  ceremonies p. 

In  examining  the  evidence  of  the  hu 
man  origin  of  the  national  gods,  I  confi- 
dered  the  objections  that  have  been  raifed 
againft  it  by  feveral  writers  as  they  came 
in  the  way,  and  particularly  thofe  urged 

•  P. 255,  458-461. 

P  Above,  p.  135,  183,  257  267,  276,  277,  308. 

I  i  3  by 


486         Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 

by  Dr.  Blackwell  and  Mr.  Bryant.  The 
former  was  a  learned  and  ingenious,  but 
not  always  a  correft,  writer.  And  his 
Letters  on  Mythology  are  rather  a  ftu- 
died  apology  for  paganifm  than  an  im 
partial  reprefentation  of  it.  He  was 
of  opinion,  that  the  gods  of  the  greater 
nations  (in  which  he  muft  include  the 
learned  ones)  were  the  deified  parts  and 
powers  of  the  univerfe.  I  have  therefore 
largely  fhewn  that  the  gods  of  thefe  na 
tions  were  deified  mortals.  His  objec 
tions  are  retailed  by  a  late  writer q  as  his 
own,  and  have  been  diftinftly  exami 
ned'.  With  regard  to  Mr,  Bryant,  it  is 

impoffible 

«  Mr,  Fell. 

*  In  ch.  I.  feft.  i .  and  other  placf s,  Mr.  Fell  at, 
tempted  to  refute  that  part  of  the  Diflertation  on  Mira^ 
cles  which  was  intended  to  prove  the  following  propcfi-^ 
tion,  viz.  "that  fufb demons,  as  were  the  more  imme- 
*'  diate  objctfs  of  the  ejlaUiJhed  ivcrjhip  amongft  the 
"  ancient  nations,  particularly  the  Egyptians,  Greeks, 
"  and  Romans,  were  fuch  departed  human  fpirits  as 
t(  were  believed  to  become  demons."  Above,  p.  4,  5, 
This  proportion  is  fully  con (TT^CI!  bj-  what  has  been  of 
fered 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.        487 

impoffible  to  forbear  doing  juftice  to  his 

abilities,  his  learning,  his  candour,  and 

I  i  4  his 

fered  in  the  preceding  meets.     Let  us  confider  whether 
Mr.  Fell  has  fucceeded  in  his  attempt  to  refute  it. 

1.  Inftead  of  informing  his  readers,  that  my  defign 
profeiTedly  was  to  prove  the  truth  of  this  proportion, 
(Difi".  Mir.  p.  183,  231.)  he  has,  on  the  contrary,  maim 
ed  and  difguifed  it,  fo  as  to  render  it  impoilible  for  any 
one  to  divine  what  the  Diflertation  aimed  at  on  this  fub- 
jeft,  and  to  lead  them  to  think  it's  aim  was  different 
from  what  it  really  was.     Above,  p.  11-18. 

2.  The  fore-mentioned  propofition  was  fupported  by 
facts  and  teftimonies.     How  has  the  gentleman  anfwcr- 
ed  thefe  arguments  ?    by  taking  no  notice  at  all  of  the 
argument  from  fads,  and  overlooking  the  principal  tef 
timonies,  particularly  thofe  of  the  early  Chriilians  and 
of  the  philofophers,  though  the  latter,  in  his  own  ac 
count,  were  the  moft  competent  witneffes.     Above,  p. 
301,  302.     But,  if  he  did  not  overturn  the  proofs  of  the 
propofition,  nor  even  examine  the  principal  of  them,  yet 
it  may  be  thought  that  he  was  able  to  urge  fome  plaufible 
objections  againft  it.     This  leads  me  to  obferve, 

3.  That  his  objections  are  foreign  from  the  purpofe. 
The  propofition  refpeded  demons  >  as  contra- diflinguifhed 
from  the  natural  gods.     Above,  p.  5.     Our  author,  in 
anfwer,  tells  us  that  the  latter  were  worfhipped  ;  which 
they  might  be,  and   yet  the  propofition  be  true.     To 
refute  it,  he  mould  have  ftiewn,  that  fuch  demons  as  it 
defcribes  were  beings  originally  fuperior  to  the  human 
race  ;    but  he  has  contented  himfelf  with  tranfcribing, 

from 


488         WorJJjip  of  human  Spirits 

zeal     to    fupport    Chriftianity.        His 
knowledge   of   antiquity   rendered   him 

fully 

from  thofe  authors  who  wrote  againft  Dr.  Sykes,  pafTa- 
ges  in  which  the  ancients  fpeak  of  demons  that  do  not 
come  under  this  defcription.  The  proportion  refpefts 
fuch  demons  as  were  the  oljtQsoftke  eftablijhed  worjhip, 
which  the  gentleman  hoped  to  refute  by  telling  us,  that 
the  philofophers  afferted  a  fuperior  order  of  demons, 
though  the  latter  were  not  the  objects  of  the  eflabliihed 
vvorfhip,  and  though  the  philofophers  themfelves  bear 
teflimony  to  the  humanity  of  thofe  who  were,*  It  is  juft 
the  fame  when  he  is  treating  the  fubjed  of  demoniacal 
pofleffion.  Inftead  of  ihewing  that  thofe  demons,  ta 
*vuhom  pojfejjlons  were  referred,  were  a  higher  order  of  be 
ings  than  human  fpirits,  (of  which  he  has  not  produced 
one  Jingle  example,)  he  only  labours  to  prove,  (what  I 
had  repeatedly  allowed,  though,  from  his  manner  of 
writing,  his  readers  would  imagine  the  contrary,)  that 
fome  did  affert  this  higher  order  of  demons,  to  whom, 
however,  pofTeffions  were  never  referred.  The  gentle 
man  fucceeds  where  he  has  no  adversary.  Farther,  the 
demons  of  the  learned  nations  were  the  only  fubjecT; 
of  the  proportion ;  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Ro 
mans,  being  mentioned  as  the  mofl  proper  fpecimens 
of  the  reft.  Above,  p.  9,  10.  To  this  the  gentleman  op^ 
pofes  the  cafe  of  the  barbarous  nations,  which,  accor 
ding  to  him,  worshipped  only  the  natural  gods ;  and 
confequently  acknowledged  no  demons  at  all,  in  the  re- 
ilrained  fenfe  of  that  word  in  the  proportion.  Ib.  p.  10, 


in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      489 

fully  fenfible  of  what  he  freely  acknow 
ledges,  viz.  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the 

Heathens 

23.    In  a  word,  all  his  objections  are  quite  foreign  from 
the  purpofe,  or  elfe, 

4.  They  are  not  founded  in  faft.  His  language  ma- 
uifeftly  implies  that  the  philofophers  were  on  his  fide, 
though  the  contrary  has  been  demon ilrated.  Above,  p. 
300-308.  He  ftrongly  infmuates  that  I  had  excluded 
their  teftimonies,  notwithftanding  I  had  appealed  to, 
and  produced,  them.  Ib.  p.  301.  note  z.  In  con 
tradiction  to  all  the  foregoing  teftimonies,  he  maintains 
that  hero -gods  *were  either  rejefted  or  not  known ,  even  in 
the  Jays  of  Plato,  by  the  great  eft  part  of  the  world',  and,  to 
give  fome  colour  to  his  afTertion,  he  fubfUtutes  the  word 
moft  in  the  room  of  many,  and  thus  corrupts,  as  well  asr 
groflly  mifmterprets,  this  philofopher.  Differt.  on  Mir. 
p.  173,  note  f.  Fell,  p.  9.  Above,  p.  10,  n,  131. 
In  moll  of  thofe  very  nations,  in  which  he  affirms  di 
vine  honours  were  not  paid  to  deceafed  heroes,  human 
fpirits  were  actually  worihipped.  Above,  ch.  I.  feel.  i. 
p.  93,etpaffim.  Seft.  2.  p.  128.  ch.  II.  fe£t.  i  andz.  In 
fome  as  the  great  eft.  Ib.  p.  33,  183.  In  others,  as 
the  only  gods.  Ib.  p.  32,  93.  According  to  his  arith 
metic,  the  natural  gods  were  the  greateft  part  of  the 
heathen  deities,  contrary  to  the  cleared:  evidence.  A- 
bove,  p.  19,  267-272.  In  order  to  ferve  his  purpofe,  he 
confounds  the  Belus,  fpoken  of  by  Berofus,  with  the 
Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  notwithftanding  Berofus 
Jiimfelf  tells  us,  Belus's  head  was  twice  cut  off.  Above, 
j>.  188-190.  He  makes  the  Phenicians  and  Egyptians 

to 


490         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 

Heathens  themfelves,    their  gods  were 

deified 

to  be  worfhippers  only  of  phyfical  beings,  by  mutila 
ting  his  author,  who  declares  in  the  moil  unequivocal 
terms,  and  in  the  very  place  appealed  to,  that  they  had 
gods  both  mortal  and  immortal,  ?jnd  that  the  former  were 
accounted  the  greateft  gods,  though  ciie  latter  were 
the  only  gods  in  their  own  natural  right.  Fell,  p.  31. 
Above,  p.  133,  etfeq.  The  gentleman  has  frequent  re- 
courfe  to  fuch  mutilations.  That  complained  of 
above,  p.  u,  12.  is  a  jufl  fpecimen  of  his  ufual 
manner  of  quoting  my  writings.  He  appeals  to  Herodo 
tus  to  prove,  that  "  the  Getes  efteemed  the  heavens  to 
be  the  only  deity,"  though  this  very  hiflorian  (in  agree 
ment  with  all  others)  affirms,  that  they  worlhipped 
Zamolxis.  Nay,  Herodotus  fays,  that  the  Getes  be- 
lie<ved  there  'was  no  other  god  but  theirs.  Above,  p.  30- 
34.  According  to  Mr.  Fell,  "  Plutarch  was  'very  care 
ful  never  to  attribute  this  opinion"  (viz.  That  the  gods 
of  Egypt  had  been  men)  "  to  the  Egyptian  priejls  ;"  and 
yet  this  fame  Plutarch  declares,  the  priefts  did  affirm, 
that  the  bodies  of  their  gods,  except  fuch  as  'were  incorrup 
tible  and  immortal  y  lay  buried  with  tbemSJ  Above,  p. 
165,  1 66.  Thus,  Mr.  Fell,  notwithftanding  his  decla 
ration  to  the  contrary,  Introduction,  p.  viii.  does 
impute  to  authors  opinions  they  never  maintained,  and  even 
fuch  as  they  clearly  contradict  or  overturn.  See  above, 
p,  133,  etfeq.  and  p.  144,  177,  note f.  No  wonder  the 
gentleman  is  rather  fparing  of  his  citations.  What  he 
did  not  know  himfelf,  he  imagined  others  were  equally 
ignorant  of.  He  fpeaks  as  if  no  proof  could  be  produ 
ced 


'in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  491 
deified  mortals'.  But  this  conceffion, 
and  other  conceffions,  together  with  his 
relying  more  on  etymological  deductions 

than 

ced  of  the  humanity  of  O/fm,  (above,  p.  169,  notek,)  or 
of  the  worfhip  of  a  man  under  the  name  of  Bel,  ib.  p.  196, 
note f ;  and  as  if  there  were  no  decifive  evidence  of  mens 
paying  religious  worfhip  to  a  human  fpirit  under  the 
term  Jupiter,  p.  246.  in  a  note  ;  though  proof  of  the 
humanity  of  Ofiris  was  placed  before  him,  fee  above,  p. 
169,  and  he  mould  have  known  that  there  was  de 
cifive  evidence  of  tue  humanity  both  of  Bel  and  of 
Jupiter.  He  confounds  the  Jupiter  of  the  temples  with 
that  of  the  philofophers.  Ib.  p.  298-300.  With  ref- 
pedt  to  Jupiter,  fee  alfo  p.  237.  He  fpeaks  of  the  doc 
trine  of  Euhemerus  as  that  of  an  in^ifvidualt  though  it 
had  fpread  throughout  the  world.  Ib.  p.  235,  236. 
It  is  not  of  one  or  two  particular  branches  of  his  fubjedl 
that  he  was  ignorant,  but  of  the  whole  :  witnefs  his  ge 
neral  declarations  concerning  the  heathen  gods.  Ib.  p. 
484.  But  it  is  not  juftifiable  to  affirm  any  thing  as  a 
fact,  while  we  are  ignorant  whether  it  be  true  or  falfe. 
Much  lefs  is  it  allowable  to  affirm  what  is  clearly  and  cer 
tainly  falfe,  in  firch  -afiured  language  as  implies  our 
knowing  it  to  be  certainly  true.  See  ib.  p.  205,  206. 
Yet  this  is  his  ufual  ftyle  of  writing.  He  reprefents  the 
grofleil  errors  as  certain  and  evident  truths.  "  There 
Cf  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  Greeks  themfelves  have 
•*  declared,  that  the  Egyptians  never  wormipped  fuch 
*(  gods  as  had  been  men."  Ib.  p.  177,  note  f.  He 

fpeaks 
s  Above,  p,  320, 


49  2  Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits, 
than  on  the  concurring  teftimonies  of  all 
ages,  feem  to  me  infuperable  difficulties 
upon  his  fide  of  the  queftion.  On  whofe 
fide  the  weight  of  evidence  preponderates 
is  a  matter  that  muft  be  left  to  the  judge 
ment  of  the  reader. 


fpeaks  of  it  as  a  matter  "  uni^  erf  ally  known  ,  that  the 
<c  Egyptians  never  paid  any  religious  honours  to  hero- 
€f  gods,"  in  exprefs  contradiction  to  the  Greeks  them- 
felves,  as  well  as  to  the  united  teftimonies  of  other  heathen 
and  of  chriftian  writers.  Ib.p.  183,  note',  See  ano 
ther  example,  p.  237,  note  k.  He  even  affirms  that  <e  all 
*'  the  world  knew  the  heathen  gods  had  never  been 
<e  men."  Fell's  Demon,  p.  1  10.  —  If  the  reader  defires 
to  fee  what  ungenerous  methods  this  writer  ufes  to  fup- 
port  his  groundlefs  accufations,  he  may  turn  to  p. 
353,  note  d,  in  the  preceding  meets. 

The  foregoing  inflances,  to  which  more  might  be 
added,  are  fufficient  to  fhew  what  opinion  we  are 
to  form  of  Mr.  Fell,  as  a  writer,  even  upon  the 
fubjeft  which  he  has  been  allowed  to  handle  better  than 
any  other.  And,  as  the  other  writers,  whom  he  hath 
mifreprefented  or  mifunderflcod,  are  not  chargeable 
with  obfcurity,  I  hope  it  is  not  owing  to  any  fuch  caufe 
that  he  has  given  a  falfe  or  erroneous  account  of  my  fen- 
timents  on  almoft  every  article  of  importance, 


THE     END. 


(     493     ) 


CONTENTS. 

THE  account  given  of  the  heathen  gods  in  the  Dif- 
fertation  on  Miracles  ftated,  and  cleared  from 
mifreprefentations,  p.  i. 

The  defign  of  the  prefent  publication  to  prove  the  gene 
ral  prevalence  of  the  <worjhip  of  human  fpirits  in  the  an 
cient  heathen  world,  p.  21.  The  proofs  either  refpeft 
particular  nations,  or  are  of  a  more  general  nature, 
and  equally  refpect  all  the  moft  celebrated  nations  of 
antiquity,  ibid.  The  ancient  nations  divided  into 
two  clafles,  the  barbarous  and  the  learned,  p.  22. 

CHAP.     I. 

Proving,  from  the  teftimonies  of  the  Heathens,  that 
human  fpirits  were  worihipped  in  the  nations  ufually 
accounted  barbarous,  p.  23. 

SECT.  I.  Particularly  in  thofe  which  have  been  faid  to 
hold  only  the  natural  gods,  p.  24.  i.  The  Scythi 
ans,  ibid.  2.  The  Maflagetes,  p.  28.  3.  The 
Getes,  p.  30.  4.  The  Goths,  p.  34.  5.  The  Ger 
mans,  p.  38.  6.  The  Perfians,  p.  47.  7.  The  Ara 
bians,  p.  84.  8.  The  Inhabitants  of  Meroe,  p.  90. 

SECT.  II.  Other  barbarous  nations  worfhipped  humaji 
fpirits,  p.  94. —  In  Africa,  the  Ethiopians,  p.  95. 
Some  of  the  Libyan  Nomades,  p.  96.  The  Augi- 

lites. 


494          CONTENTS. 

lites,  p.  97.  Carthaginians,  Hid.  Atlantians,  p.  98* 
And  others,  p.  97-100.  —  In  Europe,  p.  100. 
The  Celts,  ibid.  The  Iberians  and  Celtiberians, 
p.  102.  The  Gauls,  p.  103.  TheThracians,  pt  1 16. 
—  In  Afia,  p.  119.  The  Inhabitants  of  it's  nor 
thern  parts,  p.  1 20.  Of  the  middk  and  fouthern, 
p.  119-123.  And  of  the  eailern,  p.  123.  The  In 
dians,  p.  124.  The  Pundits  of  Indoftan,  ibid.  The 
The  Brachmans,  p.  124,  125.  The  people  of  Tar- 
tary,  p.  126.  Siam,  ibid.  Tibet,  ibid.  China,  ibid. 
Japan,  p.  127.  The  worfhip  of  dead  men  in  the  na 
tions  accounted  barbarous  was  very  general,  p.  1 29. 
And  almoft  univerfal,  and  fome  of  them  acknow 
ledged  no  other  gods,  ibid. 

CHAP.    II. 

Proving,  from  the  teftimonies  of  the  Heathens,  that 
human  fpirits  were  worlhipped  in  the  nations  polifhed 
by  tearning>  p.  132. 

SECT.  I.  The  Phenicians,  p.  133.  SECT.  II.  The  E- 
gyptians,  p.  146.  SECT. III.  The  AfTyrians,  Chal 
deans,  and  Babylonians,  p.  184.  SECT.  IV.  The 
Syrians,  p.  200.  SECT.  V.  The  Greeks,  p.  207, 
SECT.  VI.  The  Romans,  p.  247.  —  In  the  foremen-' 
tioned  civilized  nations,  all  or  almoft  all  the  obje&s 
of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  had  once  been  men ;  fuck 
even  their  great  eft  gods  had  been,  p.  276-278. 

CHAP.    III. 

Containing  general  proofs  of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpi 
rits  in  the  ancient  heathen  world,  p.  279.      Thefef 
I  proofs  drawn  from  two-  iburces,  teftimwies  and/^tf/, 

*  skid. 

SlCT* 


CONTENTS.  495 

SECT.  I.  Proofs  from  teftimonies,  Hid.  I.  The  tefti- 
jnonies  of  the  heathen  poets,  p.  280.  IT.  Philofo- 
phers,  p.  296.  III.  And  hiftorians,  p.  308.  Mr. 
Bryant's  obje&ions  propofed  and  anfwered,  p.  320. 

IV.  The  teftimonies  of  the  Chriftian  Fathers,  p.  341 . 

SECT.  II.  Proofs  from  fafts,  p.  357.  I.  The  heathen 
fepulchres,  p.  358.  II.  Temples,  p.  373.  III.  Py 
ramids,  p.  379.  IV.  Other  places  of  fepulture  and 
religious  worihip,  p.  389.  Caves,  p.  390.  (Mithras 
worfhipped  in  a  cave,  p.  393.)  Houfes,  p.  398. 
Highways,  ibid.  Groves,  p.  399.  Mountains,  p.  404. 

V.  The  ftatues  and  images  of  the  gods,    p.  408. 

VI.  The  rites  of  heathen    worihip,  p.  417.  which 
were  adapted  to  the  idea  the  Heathens  entertained  of 
human  ghoits,  ibid.     Sacrifices  and  libations,  p.  427. 
Blood,    p.  430.      Human  viclims,    p.  432.      Other 
rites  of  worfhip,  p.  447.     Mournings,  p.  448.     Ban 
quets,  p.  453.     Games,  p.  454.     Myfteries  or  fecret 
worfhip,  p.  458.    VII.  Divination  and  oracles,  p.  461. 
VIII.  The  remains  of  the  fame  kind  of  idolatrous 
worfhip,  in  popifh  countries,  as  that  pra&ifed  by  the 
Heathens,  p.  467.      The  arguments  from  facls,  in 
proof  of  the  humanity  of  the  gods,  as  extenfive  as 
thofe  from  teltimony,    p.  483.     Recapitulation,  p. 
480  to  the  end. 


BINDING  SECT.    QCT  2  6 


BL  Farmer,  Hugh 

The  general  prevalence 
F3  of  the  worship  of  human 

spirits 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY